General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Thurs., April 27, 2023
The Big News: The Permit To Purchase Bill cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee. Because of the cost, it heads to the Senate Finance Committee. As always, the Fiscal Note does not consider the revenue that will be generated once the bill takes effect. Not considering revenue, the projected annual cost is around $9 mill. I suspect that funding has already been provided in the draft Budget Bill. The bill has an excellent chance to pass both Houses and become law:
“We certainly had some sticking points last go-round that have been addressed,” said Senate Majority Whip Elizabeth “Tizzy” Lockman, prime sponsor of the bill.
One of the most significant alterations, she said, was now exempting those who are allowed to conceal and carry a deadly weapon.
This bill also requires the Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security to provide vouchers to cover the entire cost of required training for anyone whose household earns less than 200% of the federal poverty guideline.
These changes, she said, should “clear the path” in the House.
Plastic Fantastic Lovers will not be happy that SB 51 (Paradee) cleared the House Health & Human Development Committee. Neither, reportedly, was Speaker Pete. The bill sponsors have reportedly agreed to a ‘friendly’ amendment that should lead to the bill’s passage. That it handily cleared committee despite intensive lobbying by the Delaware Restaurant Association and Dart Enterprises is encouraging. Raising the question: What dastardly deeds will the Dynastic Duo deploy to deep-six it?
Here’s yesterday’s Session Activity Report.
Today’s Senate Agenda features SB 67 (McBride), which ‘updates the crime of official misconduct to ensure appropriate accountability of public servants who abuse their positions of power and public trust. The statute establishes a grade in the penalty for the official misconduct to be commensurate to the gravity of the misconduct’. If that seems somewhat nebulous to you, it does to me as well. Think I’ll listen to the floor debate on this one.
I don’t support HB 135 (Lynn), which is on today’s House Agenda. The bill ‘requires that of the five Justices appointed to the Supreme Court, at least one is a resident of Kent County, at least one is a resident of Sussex County and at least two are residents of New Castle County.’ A cursory look at the bill’s sponsors underlines my sense that it is being pushed almost exclusively by downstate legislators. There are only 5 Delaware Supreme Court justices. We shouldn’t have to dumpster-dive through any county’s judicial detritus merely to meet an arbitrary quota. Of course, we shouldn’t have so-called ‘judicial balance’ on the courts either. But that’s a story for another time and another governor.
I think it’s important to remember that however one feels about the lower two counties, there are qualified people in them. There are several worthy Superior Court Judges in the lower two counties. I honestly don’t believe that requiring Justices from the lower two counties would impact the quality of the Delaware Supreme Court and definitely makes sure that it’s not just five people who have only practiced and lived in New Castle County
There is a forced party affiliation requirement that makes Judges become republicans. This seems like it will be the same thing.
I think the party affiliation thing is probably unconstitutional because it does mean that no one who is an independent can be a Judge. What is needed is a lawsuit by someone who in theory could be a Judge but is an independent so they get rejected to file a real lawsuit. The county thing is different because it doesn’t leave anyone out and just makes sure all the counties are represented. If someone wants to move to a different county to practice and then become a Justice I don’t see the issue there
You make a good case. I just don’t think that geographical representation should be specified.
You could even turn the argument around and ask how come NCC is guaranteed two justices. I’d have a hard time disagreeing with you.
I think we’ve still got some laws on the books that specify that at least one member of a court/board be a resident of Wilmington. (State Board of Education comes to mind.)
We’re lucky we don’t have more counties.
I’d be happy with one less.
When a roll call in the House gets only one no vote, that no vote almost invariably is from Rich Collins of Suxco.
However, the one ‘no’ vote on Sen. Sturgeon’s bill that ‘allows a school employee to use the 1 day of leave provided for the funeral of a near relative on the day before or the day after the funeral. 2. Increases the number of days of sick leave that a school employee can use for personal reasons from 3 to 5. 3. Provides that a chief school officer may not ask a school employee the reason they are requesting to be absent for personal reasons and can only deny the school employee’s request because of operational requirements’ did not come from Collins.
It came from, wait for it, Stephanie Bolden. Just one more reason why she needs to be taken out in 2024.
Bolden has a history of taking votes on certain issues way too personally or with her own personal interests at heart. She’s so damn simple that my guess is she voted against the bill because she was a teacher who went her whole career without that benefit, so she doesn’t see why anyone needs the benefit now.
I think you nailed it.
El Som,
Can you please explain Sean Matthews proposed amendment to this? It does not make sense to me.
Just looks like it was a poorly-drawn amendment. It was stricken. HA 2 from Rep. K. Williams is likely what Matthews’ amendment was supposed to do. It’s viewed as a friendly amendment by the sponsors.
As to Lynn’s Supreme Court bill:
1. If I recall, Gov, Carney in late Jan. of this year agreed to a stipulated federal district court judgement that renders unenforceable the State Constitution’s “political balance” provision as it may require the appointment of only Ds or Rs to judgeships, Left in place is the requirement that one party can hold not more than a 1 judge majority in any court or across all courts.
2. When the DE Supreme Court was expanded from 3 justices to 5 justices in 1978, the informal commitment was made – in order to have the expansion succeed – to have at least one justice come from both Kent and Sussex. The amendment – sought by the NCC corporate bar – would not have passed in 1978 without everyone agreeing to that commitment. Lynn’s bill seems to codify that long ago agreement,
Thanks. As always, you have an open invitation to become a contributor to our humble blog…