General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Weds., April 17, 2019

“Hey, kids, what time is it?”

The answer might always be ‘Daylight Savings Time’ if SB 73(McBride) becomes law. But not necessarily. Because as  the bill states:

This Act achieves this (year-round DST) by doing the following: (1) Requiring, in Section 4 of this Act, that the Governor request that the United States Secretary of Transportation place Delaware in the Atlantic standard time zone if Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland each enact a law requesting the Secretary to place their respective state in the Atlantic standard time zone.

Call it a daylight savings time compact. Of course, I could get confused when coordinating with my daughter who lives in Rhode Island, so I could be an hour late (or is it early?) when picking her up at the train station, but what else is new?

OK, here’s my question. And I hate the early onset of darkness during standard time.  Students will be going to school and waiting for buses in darkness. I thought that was one of the key reasons for moving to  standard time. Plus something to do with farmers.  Will this change create issues for students, farmers and others? I don’t know. I’m glad that we’re gonna have the discussion, though.

Here’s yesterday’s Session Activity Report.  The only bill to generate any controversy was HB 56(Paradee), which looks relatively innocuous, and was likely crafted by the Alcoholic Beverage enforcement folks. However, maybe the no votes were due to Sen. David Lawson sending the debate off the tracks. From Matt Bittle’s twitter:

On a bill about liquor stores, Sen. Dave Lawson asks sponsor Sen. Trey Paradee if we should regulate gun stores too. Rep. Paradee responds he wants to talk about the bill and expects there will be plenty of time to discuss guns later.

The bill passed 12-8, with the gun nuts voting no on a bill that had nothing to do with guns. The world did not end.

Hey, kids, it’s Committee Time. There’s a really stoopid bill scheduled in a senate committee today, but you’re just gonna have to wait as I run through the highlights. We’ll get to it, I promise.

Senate Committee highlights:

SB 63(Delcollo) provides ‘whistleblower’ protections for those who oppose violations of Delaware’s Equal Accommodations Law. Specifically:

This Act enhances the protections under the Delaware Equal Accommodations Law by prohibiting retaliatory discrimination against an individual for either of the following: (1) Opposing an act or practice that is an unlawful practice under the Delaware Equal Accommodations Law. (2) Making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing to enforce the Delaware Equal Accommodations Law.

A damn good bill. Banking, Business, Insurance.

Didn’t take long to get to ‘teh stoopid’. SB 36(Richardson)  ‘…adds testifying at a hearing held by a standing committee of the House of Representatives or Senate or joint committee of the General Assembly within the definition of “swears falsely,” which applies to Delaware’s perjury laws. This addition means that false testimony to a standing or joint committee would subject a person to prosecution for perjury.‘  I went to the appropriate section of the Delaware Code to try to see how this would work:

§ 1224 Definition of “swears falsely.”

A person “swears falsely” when the person intentionally makes a false statement or affirms the truth of a false statement previously made, knowing it to be false or not believing it to be true, while giving testimony or under oath in a written instrument or in an unsworn declaration made pursuant to Chapter 53A of Title 10 or § 3927 of Title 10. A false swearing in a written instrument is not complete until the instrument is delivered by its maker, or by someone acting in the maker’s behalf to another person with intent that it be uttered or published as true. A person who gives an oral and/or written statement while granted the privilege of the floor during a session of the House of Representatives or Senate of the General Assembly, whether or not that person is under oath, gives testimony within the scope of this section.

Not much help there. Could one of you barristers please explain to me how the bleep this would work? Lobbyists prevaricate all the time at committee meetings. Who would determine what was a lie? I can guaran-damn-tee you that the AG is not gonna have someone poring through weekly committee meeting minutes. Will it be by referral? By whom?  A legislator or legislators? Will any of the mouthbreathing sponsors of this bill refer, say, a paid liar from the NRA for prosecution? Or will they only refer lib’ruls for action? I see great potential for nuisance actions and no chance at all that this bill will accomplish anything positive. Kill it in committee, and call it a mercy killing. Judicial.

SB 60(Poore) ‘clarifies that in order to be found guilty of prostitution the person must be 18 years or older.’ Judicial.

 SB 76(McDowell) makes changes to the Board of Pension Trustees and the administration of the Delaware Employees Retirement System. Here’s why I’m including this bill:

… clarifies Memoranda of Understanding with other state agencies; gives sole authority to the Board of Pension Trustees to hire an external audit firm; clarifies that the Board chair must be appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate; clarifies that all records of the Board’s Audit Department are not public records under the State’s FOIA laws. 

Because in Delaware, you don’t have a right to know. Finance.

HB 63(Lynn) is the NRA’s latest bete noir. The bill simply requires safely keeping firearms away from those who could harm themselves or others, and is only, pardon the expression, ‘triggered’ when an incident occurs. The bill is on today’s agenda, so it had better be released from committee. Executive.

The pickin’s are slimmer on the House side. The highlights:

Hey, my favorite AG candidate is back. Chris Johnson and Elmer Daniels make a presentation to the House Judiciary Committee on ‘the ramifications of wrongful convictions’.

HB 59(Bennett) ‘requires the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to publish the transaction history for funds allocated to each member of the General Assembly under the Community Transportation Fund’.  Man, if only that could be made retroactive.  Maybe we could find out, say, how Gerald Brady and Bud Freel moved public money around to pave St. Anthony’s parking lot. To highlight but one transgression. This bill will only be as good as the level of detail that will be provided. But I’m all for it.  I think it may well pass, which wouldn’t have even been possible ten years ago. Transportation/Land Use & Infrastructure.

Two blatant anti-choice bills will be (briefly) considered today. HB 52 and HB 53, sponsored by Rep. Collins. Health & Human Development.

HB 105(Minor-Brown) ‘…creates a Step Therapy Exception Process whereby patients who are required by their insurance company to go through step therapy protocols can, under certain circumstances, bypass step therapy to obtain the initially-prescribed medication.’  Anybody who has had to jump through the hoops required by insurance companies will support this bill. I do. Business Lapdog Committee. BTW, I continue to be very impressed with the bill’s prime sponsor. One of the best of the new legislators, without question.

While there is no House Agenda on Wednesdays, the Senate features two important bills today. We’ve already discussed HB 63. Even the amendment that has been placed with the bill. One possible issue: Sen. Poore was absent yesterday. If she, or any supporters of the bill, are absent today, it may not have the votes to pass. There may only be 11 yes votes in the Senate, so they’ll all have to be there.

I just love this bill that would expand circumstances under which someone’s criminal record may be expunged.  Specifically:

Under this Act, a person may have a record expunged through a petition to the State Bureau of Identification (SBI) for (1) charges resolved in favor of the petitioner; (2) a record that includes violations only after the passage of 3 years; and (3) some misdemeanors after 5 years.

This Act also provides that the court may grant a petition for expungement upon a showing of “manifest injustice” in the following situations: (1) 3 years have passed since the date of a single misdemeanor conviction; (2) a person has a single conviction in a felony case and 7 years have passed from the date of conviction or release from incarceration, whichever is later; (3) 7 years have passed since conviction or release from incarceration on misdemeanor domestic violence or misdemeanor conviction with child or vulnerable adult victim.

The Department of Justice will have an opportunity to state its position on the expungement petition to the court, and is empowered to seek input from any victim in the case. In all cases, the applicant for expungement must have no prior or subsequent convictions (other than traffic offenses, and underage alcohol or marijuana possession) in order to be eligible.

The whole idea is to give people who have earned a second chance a second chance.  This bill demonstrates that, when it comes to common sense criminal justice reform, the General Assembly has come a long way in the past ten years.

A great note upon which to conclude today’s magnum opus.