Is Speaker Pete Pulling A Fast One?
By ‘fast’, I mean before June 30.
This ‘tip’ speaks for itself and raises all sorts of questions about a bill that Schwartzkopf is rushing through the General Assembly. The subject may appear to be arcane, but looks like it’s designed to enable a lot of people who are not permanent residents of Rehoboth to vote in elections there. The bill, HB 395 (M. Smith), does not specify Rehoboth. Schwartzkopf is a sponsor. The bill in question was introduced on June 2. Already passed the House, already out of a Senate committee. Interestingly, unlike every other piece of legislation on the LIS system that I’ve seen, there is no PDF link to this bill. Coincidence? You decide. Here is the tip in its entirety:
“There is a crisis brewing in the state legislature and we need your attention immediately on an important voting issue. Please call your legislator and alert every voter that you know in the state of Delaware. Without notifying the city of Rehoboth, Pete Schwartzkopf and others have introduced a bill that affects both resident and non-resident voters. The bill takes away any residency requirement and sets the registration deadline 30 days before the election. More importantly, it allows anyone with a 30 day lease to register to vote. The bill is being rushed through to be passed before the end of the session next week. If it is passed, it could greatly affect the outcome of this year’s election by allowing many more people to register by July 13.
Among the people who could register are:
-Anyone with a lease for a summer rental of 30 days or more
-Any developer currently owning property in the city could lease that property to as many people as he wants.
-Anyone owning property in an LLC could lease to any number of people. No maximum number of lessees has been stated. (The bill takes away the requirement of a 10 year lease.)
-Summer lifeguards with leases of 30 days or more.The bill was brought up on the grounds that the residency requirement over 30 days is unconstitutional. However no one communicated and few seem to understand that the constitutionality only pertains to full-time residents.Nine (of 49) municipalities in the state of Delaware and one small municipality in Colorado are the only communities in the country that allow non-resident voting for municipal elections. Since so few people know that, it is easy to be confused about the true meaning and the unintended consequences (or were they intended??) of this bill.
The two members of the house who voted against this bill represent districts that have nonresident voting. We feel that they understood its implications and the language below in the synopsis and in the bill itself, which is the only text legislators have seen, is misleading.
If the intended purpose of this bill was to actually reduce the residency requirement to 30 days for full time residents, that is not an issue. However, the bill with the HA1 actually impacts both residents and non-resident property owners and more importantly non resident leaseholders.
Why is a City of Wilmington legislator (actually Melanie Smith) prime sponsor on a bill that only impact small Sussex County towns??? Why are there no Sussex County sponsors in the Senate?
Why is the synopsis not actually reflective of what the bill actually does? Why has there been no discussion on the floor? Do legislators actually know and understand what the bill actually does?Rationale for bill:
SYNOPSIS
Pursuant to longstanding United States Supreme Court precedent, it is unconstitutional to require a person to be a resident of the voting state, district, or municipality for any length of time that exceeds the time necessary to effectively register voters prior to an election. See Marston v. Lewis, 410 U.S. 679 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972). In Delaware, 30 days prior to the election is the current deadline for registering to vote in statewide and national elections. 15 Del. C. § 2036. This bill would prohibit any municipality from enacting or maintaining any durational residency or property ownership requirement for voting eligibility, and sets the maximum deadline for registration at 30 days prior to a municipal election. This will bring Delaware’s municipal voting laws in line with federal constitutional standards.Text of changes:
Section 1. Amend Section 7554, Title 15 of the Delaware Code by making deletions as shown by strike through and insertions as shown by underline as follows:
§ 7554. Voter eligibility.
(a) Voter eligibility shall be as specified within the town charter; provided however, that in no event shall a municipality impose a durational residency requirement or a durational property ownership requirement, or require that a leaseholder be a leaseholder for any duration of time prior to being eligible to vote.(c) A municipality that maintains its own voter registration system shall publish and post a schedule of when eligible citizens may register to vote. The deadline for voter registration shall be no more than 30 days prior to any scheduled municipal election, and timeliness shall be determined in accordance with § 2036(1) and (2)of this title. The municipality shall provide eligible citizens a reasonable opportunity to register to vote.
The bill could be called up for a Senate vote at any time. So, what do you think? Maybe he’s just trying to make sure that people from Park Slope who are vacationing at the shore can vote in the primary election? Or, is this bill merely what it says it is? The floor is open.
I would have to dig deeper, but at first glance the Synopsis seems reasonable. Many municipalities have already taken this route to get rid of the 30 day residency requirements. I think the person may be reaching when it comes to people with 30 day leases. This bill doesnt look like it changes voter registration requirements other than the date of registration . Typically when you register to vote you have to provide a 12 month lease, a month/month 12 month agreement, deed, electric bills, drivers license, etc. I don’t think the state would allow you to register to vote with simply a one month summer lease as a result of what is written, nor do I think that anyone would go through the effort of collecting all of that documentation: getting a new drivers license, changing the address of credit card bills, having the electric bill changed to their name from the property owner, etc… just for 1 month so they can vote in Rehoboth. Let alone would enough people do that to sway an election? Seems like someone who is against opening up voting for renters and/or poorer residents who have a tendancy to move more than wealthier voters.
“that in no event shall a municipality impose a durational residency requirement or a durational property ownership requirement, or require that a leaseholder be a leaseholder for any duration of time prior to being eligible to vote”
The key phrase here is “prior to being eligible to vote
Why the rush, rush, hush, hush?
30 days residency is fine if the voter is a true domiciled resident. But why deal with property owners and leaseholders?
Why does the legislature want to cram this down the throats of beach towns? Money from someone?
Here’s the response from a well-placed source in the House:
“First, towns that have laws requiring residency longer than the period to register to vote for the election are unconstitutional. Plain and simple. I point-blank asked our attorney if I moved to a town on June 1 and the election was July 15, tried to register and was told I had to live there six months, could I sue and win? The attorney said yes, I would win and the law would be found unconstitutional. (If you read the synopsis, there are two USSC cases cited.)
This is directly from our House attorney:
“As used in this Chapter ‘Lease’ means a valid lease to real property in the City for a term of at least ten (10) years which lease is recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Sussex County and upon which real property is erected an improvement having an assessed valuation of at least one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) as shown by the records of the City of Rehoboth Beach. ‘Leaseholder’ as used in this Chapter means an individual holding title to an undivided interest in a Lease or who holds title to a lease as a tenant by the entirety.
Rehoboth allows longterm “leaseholders” to vote even if they are not residents. They have to have a term of at least 10 years. After passage of the bill, the minimum length of the lease will still be valid. But you cannot require the long-term lease to have STARTED 6 months prior to the election. If my lease starts July 1, but it’s for 10 years, I should still be eligible to vote. Even though the lease did not take effect 6 months prior to the election.”
Second, this deals with municipal elections, not state elections, so any theories about this helping a certain lieutenant governor candidate or 14th District Rep are baseless. (Hence the bill title: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 15 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.) State law already defines state election residency requirements.
Third, Common Cause of Delaware supported the bill at the hearing because it’s a voting rights bill. I believe the League of Women Voters also supports the bill. Feel free to check with them.
Also, Melanie is not a city of Wilmington legislator. She’s an attorney and former Judiciary Committee chair who runs most of our “legal” bills.” (I knew that, which is why I pointed it out.)
I’m pretty much satisfied by this explanation.
Just an FYI: Your screen name is ridiculous and sophomoric. So much so that I don’t read what you write. I really don’t understand some people. Do you really get off on this stuff? You’re like an old man flashing people on the subway.
My daughter was reading over my shoulder and when she saw your screen name she said, “What a tool.” Ya think?
I just wanted to let you know that people won’t take what you write seriously. Change it. Keep it. Whatever.
Many municipalities allow property owners who do not reside in the town limits to vote in certain elections. Like Annexation Elections or special elections.
I agree Pandora. El Som.. change your name sir. Disgusting!
While this only covers municipal elections, there are two issues I am not sure about.
First, if there is a contested race anywhere up the ticket, this can be used as a precedent for a losing candidate to say that their voters were disenfranchised. While it may not result in a overturned election, but it could cause chaos for a time.
Second, how do you prevent those from voting in the up-ticket races that can vote in lower races? Can the department of elections give them an amended ballot, or make is so they only have the option of voting in the lower race? How much work, logistically and time-wise, would that require?
I contacted Common Cause and they just said they have WITHDRAWN support for the bill as written. They do support reducing residency to 30 days for REAL RESIDENTS who became domiciled in a town at least 30 days before an election — the other part of the bill is what troubles them. Why this same 30 day rule also applies to nonresident property owners and leaseholders is the problem….
The constitution does NOT prohibit towns from requiring that property be owned 3 months or 6 months or more before an election (same for lease). So why is the legislature really doing this? Failure to understand or….? That needs to come out unless they want to cram it down the throat of beach towns.
Just a reminder: These crooks are the “down-ballot” Democrats that we’re supposed to pretend are liberal/progressives because…uh, what was the reason again?
House Bill 395 restricts municipalities from having a voter registration cutoff date that is greater than 30 days prior to the municipal election. It also prohibits municipalities from imposing a durational residency requirement for residents (a specified period of time an individual must reside in the municipality before being eligible to register to vote), a durational ownership requirement for non-residents (a specified period of time a non-resident individual must own property in the municipality before being eligible to register to vote), or a durational period for non-resident leaseholders (a specified period of time a non-resident of the municipality must have a leasehold interest in property in the municipality before being eligible to register to vote).
The problem with the Bill is that it seeks to afford the same constitutional protections to non-residents as are properly provided to residents in the context of voter eligibility for municipal elections. And in so doing, the Bill would strip municipal governments of their ability to place rational restrictions on non-resident voter eligibility.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that an individual that resides outside of a municipality has no fundamental right to vote in that municipality’s elections. Specifically, in Holt Civic Club, et al. v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978), the Supreme Court explained:
No decision of this Court has extended the one man, one vote principle to individuals residing beyond the geographic confines of the governmental entity concerned, be it the State or its political subdivisions. On the contrary, our cases have uniformly recognized that a government unit may legitimately restrict the right to participate in its political processes to those who reside within its borders. Id. at 68-69.
Writing for the Court, then Chief Justice Rehnquist further explained:
A city’s decisions inescapably affect individuals living immediately outside its borders…. Yet no one would suggest that nonresidents likely to be affected by this sort of municipal action have a constitutional right to participate in the political processes bringing it about. Id. at 69.
Like the U.S. Supreme Court, the Delaware Supreme Court has long recognized that nonresident property owners have no Constitutional right to vote in municipal elections. Dupont v. Mills, 196 A. 168, 175-79 (Del. 1937).
Because voting rights of non-residents are not constitutionally guaranteed, where a municipality affords voting rights to non-residents, any eligibility requirements established by the municipality only need to meet the low burden of being rationally related to a governmental purpose. The voting rights of bona fide residents, on the other hand, are protected by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and therefore any eligibility requirements established by the municipality need to satisfy the high burden of strict scrutiny.
In its current form, HB 395 fails to observe the distinction between resident and non-resident voting and how constitutional principles should be applied to the two categories of voters. While the Bill properly recognizes that the U.S. Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional a residency requirement greater than 30 days, the Court has not made the same declaration concerning restrictions placed on the voter eligibility of non-residents. Yet HB 395 seeks to abolish durational ownership requirements and durational leasehold requirements for non-residents. Given the current status of the law, restrictions placed on the eligibility of non-residents to register to vote should be left to the legislative discretion of the municipalities that permit non-resident voting.
Dem19703, I please ask that you stop stirring the pot. Your questions are off base, and analysis is misplaced.
@Charles in Charge
First, thank you for asking so nicely, but unless you can offer a better analysis you should probably stop asking people to stop posting things that you do not agree with.
Second, how is offering an opinion and posing a question “stirring the pot?” I know I’ve mentioned this before, but this is blog, it is for offering opinions, asking questions, stirring pots, posting videos of cats getting brain freeze, or whatever else the moderators allow. If you do not like something that is said, reply with a contrary point of view, or don’t. But asking me to not express my opinion is just a foolish shot across the bow.
Now, do you have a reason for thinking my analysis is “off base,” and “misplaced?” If it is valid and you can prove it, I’m all for hearing it. The post above yours makes some pretty good points. Let’s see what you’ve got…
I’ve already said what I needed to. If you don’t like my thoughts then you can go elsewhere. After all, this is a blog and it is for sharing opinions, as you say. I’d like to keep the discussion and content at a higher level than what you are able to offer.
@CC: You didn’t say anything meaningful. If you have a meaningful opinion to share, please do so. You have not offered anything at a “higher” level than, oh, sea level so far.
Otherwise, crawl back under your bridge.
Oh, my apologies. I did not realize this was your thread. By all means, be the gatekeeper of the content level.
But my questions were still not answered. They don’t have to be answered by you, but you seem to know, so I will ask again. Will this set a precedent that can be the base of a challenge for a losing candidate up the ticket? Also, how can the Dept. of Elections account for those who do not qualify to vote for the higher races, but can vote in municipal elections? Will paper ballots have to be given to them, or will the department be able to adjust the voting machines in those instances to allow for these candidates to only vote in the lower elections. This is not an issue in municipalities that have elections that are not through the DE Dept. of Elections, but what about those that do and coincide with the state primary/general?
Explain the answer you seem to know, also if you would be so kind, why this falls to a level beneath your standards. I eagerly await you eloquent reply.
Interesting that Common Cause has withdrawn its support. Thank you Jay for that news. It’s also heartening to read that some people do understand that there is a distinction between domiciled residents and nonresident property owners insofar as constitutional voting rights are concerned. What is disheartening is that a “well placed source in the House” does not seem to know that and implies that some legislators/attorneys don’t either.
” I point-blank asked our attorney if I moved to a town on June 1 and the election was July 15, tried to register and was told I had to live there six months, could I sue and win? The attorney said yes, I would win and the law would be found unconstitutional. (If you read the synopsis, there are two USSC cases cited.)”
This person should have point-blank asked their attorney if they bought a beach house as a second home or for investment to be used as rental property, would they be able to vote within 30 days, even if they didn’t spend a day at the beach house during that time. That is what this bill will allow!
Furthermore, if the beach house was in Ocean City (MD or NJ, take your pick), they would not be able to vote in a municipal election there, not in 30 days, not in 6 mos, not ever. . . Unless the law is changed. But guess what? MD towns used to have that right. The last town to do away with it in favor of resident-only voting did so in 2012, citing the Supreme Court cases above in HB395’s response. The fact is that 9-10 municipalities in DE and one small town in CO are the only places in the country that allow nonresident voting in general municipal elections. Meaning electing Mayors and Council members. We are lucky to have this privilege here.
Two other things:
1. Why weren’t the municipalities affected by this change notified? Why is it being done? For whom? What’s next?
2. On the House vote, 2 reps voted no. Both from Sussex, one has 3 towns in his district that allow nonresident voting. So perhaps he has a problem with the bill, based on his experience.
Clarification that the bill relates to domiciled residents only is needed. Unless the intent is to really give all property owners that right. But shouldn’t the towns be at the table for that discussion?
@anonymous
You beat me to it. I need to check back sooner. But, agreed.
DEM19703:
Without opining on the merits of the bill, I can respond to your question on the effect on up ballot races and the need for separate ballots. In Delaware, outside of the City of Wilmington, municipal elections are non-partisan. While Wilmington elects its city officials in conjunction with the even-year state and federal elections, the other municipalities elect their mayors ( is elected) and councilmembers in separate elections, often on an annual election.
While citizens desiring to vote in state and federal elections can register on line, at the Dept of Elections or at the DMV, most cities and towns (other than Wilmington) do not recognize the state created registrations, but require citizens who wish to vote in municipal elections to register FOR THOSE ELECTIONS ONLY, at the city or town hall. For example, a person moving to Milford who registers to vote at the DMV when he/she changes the auto registration will be turned away when there is an attempt to vote at Milford’s annual elections for city council, unless that person went to city hall to register for municipal elections. Most city and town charters also contain a cut off for registration in advance of the 30 day rule AND most allow non-resident property owners to vote–and even to run for office (as you find in Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, for example).
So, the right to vote in a municipal election, even if not a resident, already exists. The proposed legislation will not create that right for state and federal elections.
This unique system is a shock to many moving into these towns from out of state or Wilmington, but it has existed for many years.
Statewide. Property. Tax.
@Rehoboth Voter
Very good points and questions. How would increasing the voter rolls to include absentee owners and seasonal leaseholder’s help, and who would they help? I suspect, but just a suspicion, that this is geared toward those NCC residents who own/lease property in the beach areas to be able to vote in those elections. However, since it is only a municipal law, who does it help/hurt? My other question still stands, as to what potential consequences this will have on other elections in which voters can vote on lower ballot candidates, but not the top of the ticket.
I too have spoken with three different state reps that I trust and asked what the motivation for the vote was. All three said the same thing. The summary of the bill was that it just “appeared” to be lining up the residency requirements with the federal standards. Also, that the bill and amendment were introduced during a time when many routine housekeeping bills were being passed. It seemed to them to be just another clarification. All three, upon further analysis, have expressed regret in not delving further and two mentioned they may actually speak to their constituents, or directly to their colleagues in the other chamber, to ask that they oppose it.
@Mitch Crane
Thank you for the explanation. My concern still stands for those municipalities that do partake in the DE Dept. of Elections process, but you have helped clear up some questions for me. It seems that we need to ensure that there is a residency requirement caveat that requires “real,” or geographical residency, not just property ownership and leaseholds. I am surprised this has not been a big issue in the past, unless it was and I missed it. Thanks again for the explanation.
@Dem19703
Who are the reps you spoke to? If you are not able to provide that level of detail than please don’t post here. I prefer thought out, detailed dialogue that gets us to where we need to go. Saying that you “spoke to three reps” doesn’t accomplish that. What it does do, is stir the pot. You’ve become quite good at that.
@CIC
I did not mention their names because that would be very foolish. This is a public forum. If they wanted their names out there, they would do it themselves. Also, who cares what you prefer, or what you would rather do? I do not believe you have been anointed the moderator.
As far as level of detail, what have you contributed? You seem pretty hung up on me, not the subject. I suspect you do not have any details, or you would have availed yourself of the facts to counter my poorly thought out argument, to which you alluded. Not sure if this “gets us where we need to be,” or even where that is, but you input has been useless so far.
Since Rehoboth’s Charter provides the “right” for non-residents to vote and provides for non-resident Commissioners, I would say that there is a fundamental right to vote by non-residents.
I recall the storm awhile back regarding who can vote, why, when, yadda, yadda and the fact that there was a 6 month requirement. I assume this is a fix for that. Since the muni election is in August, I’m assuming they would like to put this to bed before then to avoid the same storm they had last year or whenever.
Congratulations, Dem19703, despite what CinC says, you’ve figured out precisely what is happening here. In fact, that’s probably why he’s so spun up. This is an effort to substantially enlarge the voting rights of non resident property owners disguised as a housekeeping measure to address a (likely legitimate) concern with the voting requirements for bona fide residents. Even Common Cause bought into it hook line and sinker until they realized their mistake and withdrew support. Note that the GA could have passed a bill to amend Rehoboth’s charter. But that would have caught the city’s attention. Note also that the part expanding the rights of leaseholders was slipped in as an amendment at the last minute. If the reps knew what they voting for, it never would have received as much support as it did.
@Bob
I know, but I just really was trying to get under his skin. But I agree with you. One of the legislators that CinC does not believe exists, gave me the same information. They are familiar with the “non resident property owner,” as am I. It has been in the works for some time now, and attempted previously, but did not get any traction before.
I am curious if this will even be addressed in the Senate. I have not checked, but there is controversy and they have too much to consider right now to get bogged down in something like this. It will be interesting to see.
“Who are the reps you spoke to? If you are not able to provide that level of detail than please don’t post here.”
As always with those who can use it against you, ID is demanded. As if you were obligated to out your sources to some anonymous douchenozzle who’s never comented before.
Now, as for “than please don’t post here,”
1) Who are you to issue orders? You have no power here.
and
2) The word you wanted was “then.” Don’t pretend it was a typo, it’s a typical hayseed mistake and the two keys aren’t close enough for a finger slip. If you can’t handle basic syntax, then please don’t post here.
Because of this, maybe?
A federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Rehoboth Beach’s six-month voter residency has been dismissed.
U.S. District Court of Delaware Judge Gregory Sleet agreed with the city’s position that plaintiff Jackie Nichols lacked standing to challenge the six-month requirement, since she herself was not prevented from voting in the June 27 referendum to authorize city officials to borrow $52.5 million for an ocean outfall pipe that would end 6,000 feet off Deauville Beach.
David Finger, attorney for Nichols, says an appeal has been filed.
In his opinion, Sleet said Nichols suffered no particular injury as a result of the referendum election. He also agreed with the city’s contention that federal district court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The city had argued the six-month rule is part of the city’s charter, which is ratified by the General Assembly and has the effect of state law, not federal law.
Nichols was seeking to overturn the results of the referendum vote, which passed 637-601. She filed suit in July, arguing that not only was the six-month rule unconstitutional, but the city had violated the 14th Amendment’s “one person, one vote” principle by allowing registered voters who own their property in a corporation to vote for themselves and on behalf of their corporation.
Nichols argued the six-month rule was not spelled out in the city charter’s special-election requirements, although the rule is part of the charter’s regulations on general municipal elections. In her legal filings, Nichols argued that the six-month rule also violates the Delaware constitution’s provision that a voter must reside within a voting district for at least 30 days to be eligible.
In response, the city asked for the suit to be dismissed because Nichols lacked legal standing because she was never denied the right to vote, made her challenge too late, made no claims against named parties City Manager Sharon Lynn or Mayor Sam Cooper and the matter was a state, not federal case.
After determining Nichols had no standing to bring a suit, Sleet did not comment on any of Nichols’ other accusations and ordered the case closed. Finger said he has appealed the case to U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.
Cooper said the decision was very good news for the city.
– Cape Gazette
First post on here, but there seems to be a lot of confusion and misinformation being spread about HB 395. First of all, this isn’t about Pete at all. Pete isn’t doing anything under the radar and its unfair to imply that. Its a bipartisan bill, and its just common sense, and that’s why it has moved through the House and Senate committee quickly. And frankly, its a progressive bill to preserve voting rights. So if you value voting rights like I do and like the sponsors do, then you ought to support it.
The claims that it allows anyone with a 30 day lease to vote are both ridiculous and intentionally misleading. Anyone who reads the bill can see that. You have to have a 10 year lease to be an eligible voting leaseholder in Rehoboth and the bill doesn’t alter that.
The constitutional issue about non-resident voting is a red herring. Rehoboth is trying to argue the bill takes legislative control away from them. The actual effect of this bill on Rehoboth’s voting, and any other municipality that permits non-residents to vote, would be to maintain the equality that currently exists for them. Non-resident voters make up a very large percentage of voters in Rehoboth Beach. They have had voting rights for a long time that are equal to the voting rights of residents. Delaware law makes clear that once you give non-residents voting rights, they are not privileges, they are rights. Right now everyone has an arbitrary 6 month durational requirement to satisfy before they can vote. That isn’t progressive. Its ridiculous. Why does that requirement exist for anyone? It serves no purpose other than to prevent people who are otherwise eligible from voting. The effect of this bill would keep everyone, residents and non-residents, on the same footing, just as they are now. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that policy decision. Particularly when it has been abused for decades by Rehoboth Beach.
The assertion that Rehoboth didn’t know about the bill is also intentionally misleading. Rehoboth has been consciously aware that its durational residency requirements were unconstitutional for at least a year, and even in the face of that knowledge, proceeded to enforce the requirement at last year’s election. In a tortured analysis, the City Solicitor, completely ignoring federal supremacy, actually said that the City had to enforce the durational residency requirement because its in the charter, and that the City couldn’t do anything about it unless the General Assembly amended the charter. Then the City Commissioners refused to take any action to initiate a charter amendment. And they were told that a bill would be introduced if they didn’t take action to amend their charter. So the fact that they didn’t actually monitor the bill filings is their own negligence. There aren’t any clean hands on the City of Rehoboth on this one. So it is very ironic that they are now complaining about a common sense bill that affects them in a way they don’t agree with.
This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to voting rights issues in Rehoboth. They also strip the voter roles after two municipal elections if you don’t vote (with stringent absentee voting requirements), and people are allowed to vote multiple times in some elections through LLCs and corporations.
Change the bill so that it applies only to residents who can vote by virtue of their domicile being established at least 30 days before an election. But delete the part about property owners and leaseholders…..that is too complicated to rush into law without hearings and reasonable input from the beach towns.
If you want to find a middle ground, then require beach towns to let all ELIGIBLE voters register up to 30 days before an election. So if a nonresident property owner is ELIGIBLE because he has owned the property for 6 months, or if she is ELIGIBLE as a leaseholder with a 10 year lease and she has had the lease for at least 6 months, let them register to vote up to 30 days before the election. WHEN they can register to vote is different from changing their ELIGIBILTY to vote!
Don’t compare a resident voter who has been domiciled there for 30 days to someone who simply bought property 31 days before the election. — there are very different practical and constitutional considerations between resident voters and nonresident property owners/leaseholders. The legislature should hold hearings next year and let all sides be debated. Why should the legislature cram this down the throads of beach towns…..so non-resident investors can keep buying property and get quick access to the ballot? TIME FOR A PAUSE, SENATORS!
Non-resident investors do not spent $750k+ to get one vote in a municipal election. That makes no economic sense. The charter doesn’t contain any differences now, so the practical considerations you haven’t identified haven’t been practical for decades.
When the Rehoboth Charter first allowed non residents to vote decades ago, most non residents actually spent a lot of time in Rehoboth. Although they may have rented their houses part of the year, the houses were not primarily investment properties. Nowadays, the percentage of property owners who buy for investment purposes only and spend very little time in Rehoboth has increased. Sorry, but you can’t deny this fact. To say that the City Charter didn’t distinguish between resident voters and non-resident property owner voters 50 years ago is not to say that a distinction is not justified today. You know darn well that the Constitution allows these two groups of people to be treated differently, and that’s because there are legitimate reasons to do so.
All of this would have been argued properly back and forth if there were real hearings on this bill and it wasn’t a last minute rush job. So let true residents get there eligibility after 30 days of residency, that’s fair. But don’t jump to conclusions about the rush to extend the same rule to nonresident property owners and lease holders. Are you concerned that if there are hearings and testimony in the next legislature, that this won’t be done? If that’s not your concern, then let it go through that normal process.
There is no distraction today, so you want to impose a new distinction on them. Apparently one that requires them to spend a certain amount of time in Rehoboth as a prerequisite to vote. Its not difficult to figure out how to vote in Rehoboth. You don’t have to spend a lot of time there to figure out what’s going on. And trying to guard against what you perceive is an under informed electorate isn’t a legitimate reason. This is exactly why these provisions of the bill are important.
The bill is going through the normal process. There was a hearing in the House, published on the agenda, with public comment, 5 senators released it from committee, and there will be a floor debate in the Senate if anyone objects to the bill. Meanwhile, people are still prohibited from voting for no legitimate reason with an election pending in August.
The fact that Common Cause withdrew its support for this bill. – something that rarely happens -‘ is the best evidence that something is rotten in the State of Delaware about this bill. Correct the problem for resident domiciled voters and look at property owners /leaseholders in the next session. Your comment about the need to do it now before the August election in Rehoboth indicates that the rush to do this may be more of an effort to affect the results in this particular election than to take an even handed look at the problem. And the Synopsis in the bIll that the changes are required by the US Constitution is flat out false when it comes to nonresident voters –does the legislature want to force several beach towns to change their laws about nonresident voting based on false statements about the US Constitution?.
Thank you, Jay for being the voice of reason, for providing perspective on what Rehoboth has been and what’s it’s becoming as more and more investors descend on the City, and for bringing the real issues to the surface.
Mark Pupura — So, the word on the street is true? The word is that you are the real author of this bill and that you are using your personal vendetta against the City of Rehoboth, and your clients’ money, to change legislation at the state level and to change the outcome of the election this year, just like you tried to change it last year without success, so that your candidate, an investor gets elected. Wow. Just wow.
How many LLC investors do you represent? I’m sure they’d love to lease their properties to 4,6,8 people per so they can vote. Despite what you say about its intention, that is what the bill allows. An attorney already told me that if someone with a 30-day lease was denied the right to vote, he’d challenge it in court. Lawsuits against the city’s voting requirements have already cost the city upwards of a half million dollars. And I believe all of the cases have been dismissed! So, if the courts can’t help you, gotta change that law.
The “confusion and misinformation being spread” is coming from those who are created this amendment — that would be you.
Your argument about nonresidents/residents having equal voting rights all along in Rehoboth is backwards. Yes, the City has used the same residency requirements for both and that should be changed — to give RESIDENTS the rights that the Supreme Court confirmed they have. That is the ONLY element that needs to be changed because as noted in another post here, “Like the U.S. Supreme Court, the Delaware Supreme Court has long recognized that nonresident property owners have no Constitutional right to vote in municipal elections.”
The synopsis of the bill even says it’s being done to conform to federal standards. So, do that!
In your rant here, you have named Rehoboth no fewer than 9 times. But you do realize that your attempts to overhaul the government there also affects at least 8 other towns in the State. Is this fair to them? None of them, I repeat none of them, know this is even happening!
Your statement that “the bill is going through the normal process” has been proven false by Dem19703’s conversations with reps. It bears repeating here:
“I too have spoken with three different state reps that I trust and asked what the motivation for the vote was. All three said the same thing. The summary of the bill was that it just “appeared” to be lining up the residency requirements with the federal standards. Also, that the bill and amendment were introduced during a time when many routine housekeeping bills were being passed. It seemed to them to be just another clarification. All three, upon further analysis, have expressed regret in not delving further and two mentioned they may actually speak to their constituents, or directly to their colleagues in the other chamber, to ask that they oppose it.”
The fact that you would use your reputation and platform for equality to obfuscate the real motives behind this legislation is unconscionable. Common Cause, also noted for its progressive stance on voting rights but without such conflicts, has withdrawn its support.
You can’t make this stuff up. I hope the press is reading.
This has been a far more interesting thread than I thought.
The bill seems to have been motivated by something more than just ‘bringing Delaware law into accordance with Federal standards’.
I have a question for Mark Purpura that may help shed some light: Did you craft this bill and/or were you involved in the crafting/lobbying of the bill? If so, on whose behalf did you craft it?
It now seems pretty clear that SOMEONE wanted this bill passed by the end of session, and I’d like to know who.
Thanks to the host for asking those questions about the background for this bill.
I would urge Senate members to consider one other key point: when you are being told in the Synopsis of the bill that it is necessary to comply with US Supreme Court rulings, please keep in mind that this is a FALSE STATEMENT when it comes to voting by non-resident property owners and leaseholders. The US Supreme Court rulings apply ONLY to residents (meaning domiciled residents). There is absolutely NO US Supreme Court ruling that says non-resident property owners and leaseholders must be allowed to vote in a city election if they have owned their property or had their lease for as short as 30 days!
The Synopsis is especially wrong — and was misleading to legislators — because it is contrary to a federal court case that allows additional restrictions on non-resident property owners. There is even a federal court case involving a city that allowed non-residents to vote in general bond elections if they owned property in the city and if they lived in the surrounding county and if they had paid city property taxes in the previous year. The federal court said that a general bond election is like any other general election, and so the US Constitution applies — BUT that even under the US Constitution, it was acceptable to limit voting rights to only those non-resident property owners who paid taxes in the previous year. The city did NOT violate the US Constitution by imposing the additional requirement on non-resident property owners (payment of property taxes in the prior year) — a requirement that did not apply to resident. Rehoboth Beach and the other beach towns are even more liberal towards non-resident property owners — only 6 month property ownership. There is NO US Supreme Court case which undermines that federal court decision.
Senators and Representatives — don’t you think that you were entitled to an accurate statement of the laws in the Synopsis for this bill? Don’t you think you should have been told that NO US Supreme Court case requires the state legislature to undo the voting laws of several beach towns regarding non-resident property owners and leaseholders? Something is really wrong here.
I absolutely am lobbying for the bill in my personal capacity, not on behalf of anyone else. I haven’t consulted with anyone outside the General Assembly about the bill. I have no control over the timing and have not once suggested how the bill should be run. I was at the House committee hearing and made public comments in support of the bill, making it very clear that I was speaking in my personal capacity and not on behalf of anyone else. I am a resident of Rehoboth Beach and I care that people have the ability to vote in municipal elections. I have no personal vendetta, but I am allowed to have a political opinion. I am not beholden to any candidate. I am not involved in any lawsuit against the City of Rehoboth. I have been very transparent in conveying my concerns to the City of Rehoboth about the access to voting. I am by far not the only person who has those concerns. I am 100% comfortable with what I am doing and why, I don’t hide behind screen names and I don’t spread misinformation.
It sounds like Mark Purpura is an upfront guy who is doing what any citizen is entitle to do — push for legislation. He states that he hasn’t consulted with anyone “outside of the General Assembly” on this bill, so it would be good to know who in the General Assembly he consulted with? If he’s a resident of Rehoboth Beach, why was the bill introduced by Representatives from the Wilmington area up state, and not by Rehoboth Beach or Sussex County legislators?
But more to the point: given Mark’s candor, is he willing to admit that there is NO US Supreme Court case (or another other federal court case) that says when a city extends voting rights in city elections to NON-resident landowners and leaseholders, the same rules must apply for city resident voters (domiciliaries) as well as for NON-resident landowners and leaseholders? If there is a US Supreme Court case that says that (and no one has yet found it), it would be helpful for Mark Purpura to identify that case in this blog.
And is there is NO US Constitutional requirement to treat resident voters and non-resident property owner/leaseholder voters the exact same way, then wasn’t the legislature misled by the Synposis in the bill which says “This bill would prohibit any municipality from enacting or maintaining any durational residency or property ownership requirement for voting eligibility, and sets the maximum deadline for registration at 30 days prior to a municipal election. This will bring Delaware’s municipal voting laws in line with federal constitutional standards.” That last sentence is FALSE in implying that “federal constitutional standards” require Delaware cities to wipe out durational requirements of more than 30 days on property owners and leaseholders.
We can all argue about what is the right policy, or what is the fair thing to do — and people have differences. But let’s be candid enough to say that what the Delaware legislature is trying to do to the beach towns is NOT required by the US Constitution as far as NON-resident property owners and leaseholders is concerned. Delete that part of this bill and let’s deal with that part next year when we can have an extended debate about it.
“If he’s a resident of Rehoboth Beach, why was the bill introduced by Representatives from the Wilmington area up state, and not by Rehoboth Beach or Sussex County legislators?”
The bill’s primary sponsor is a partner at the same Wilmington law firm as Mr. Purpura (who commutes from Rehoboth??), according to her official legislative bio.
Here’s what I think we’ve learned. This bill is not simply a housekeeping bill designed to ensure that Delaware law is in concert with federal law. This bill was designed to address municipal elections in Rehoboth even though there was no specific notice in the title of the bill nor in the body of the bill that this was the bill’s intent.
I don’t know if it’s a good bill or a bad bill. I DO know this: The intent of the bill was misrepresented. I can only conclude that…Speaker Pete tried to pull a fast one. Nothing impacting Rehoboth gets through the House without the approval of Speaker Pete.
This is what makes it so difficult to research legislative intent in Delaware. Few hearings, late amendments, and misleading synopsis. Someplace special for sure.
That’s why late June is the most dangerous legislative time of the year. I missed that bill even though I try to keep a close eye on bills that look like special interest legislation being smuggled through when nobody is paying attention.
In fact, a bill that was only introduced on Tuesday is on the next House Agenda. It appears to have been written for the VFW’s and Legion posts that, for years, have had slot machines in them. You may remember a so-called ‘compromise’ crafted between the state, the casinos, and these ‘charitable’ organizations just a couple of years ago to allow those organizations to continue to provide what clearly was illegal gaming up until the compromise.
So, what does HB 440 (Viola) DO, exactly, and why is it being smuggled through the last week of session? The bill synopsis reads:
“This Act requires that organizations wishing to operate charitable video lottery machines connect those machines to the central lottery computer system beginning March 31, 2017. The bill also eliminates the requirement that charitable gaming organizations donate at least 40% of the organization’s proceeds to a charitable purpose and the requirement to submit a report to the Lottery Director documenting that use.”
To me, the trade-off is as follows: The machines must be hooked up to the Delaware Lottery computer. In exchange, 40% of the proceeds no longer have to be donated to charitable purposes. Seems like a windfall to me. Maybe it’s legit, but the way the bill is being rushed through and the dubious track record of the prime sponsor give me pause.
I’ll keep my eye out for others, but sometimes the smugglers are more clever than the cops.
Nothing to see here. Mark makes sense.
Here’s the only actual reporting out there on this bill, in which RB Mayor Sam Cooper says the town was not consulted on the bill and suggests that it would cause chaos in the August election: http://www.capegazette.com/article/bill-takes-aim-rehoboth-voting-rules/109845
Ya know, I don’t live in Rehoboth Beach but i hang out there every day having pizza and fruit smoothies on the boards. I think that well qualifies me to run. Mouse 2016!
Ernie Lopez to the rescue:
http://www.capegazette.com/article/voter-registration-bill-amended/110139