General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Weds., June 21, 2023
The headlines:
Bill Protecting Gender-Affirming Health Care will not be considered this year:
A proposal to extend legal protections for providers of gender-affirming care will not be considered by state lawmakers during the final weeks of this year’s legislative session.
Following introduction of the House Bill 230 Thursday, bill sponsor Rep. DeShanna Neal, D-Elsmere, said the bill will not receive a committee hearing this year and they plan to spend the offseason “building support and educating people about this very critical – and very misunderstood – issue.”
“I filed House Bill 230 because we are seeing other states weaponizing their laws against the transgender community, and we should be clear that we will not let those other states’ laws prevent people from seeking gender-affirming care in Delaware. I want to be clear that I filed this bill to begin the conversation and open a dialogue on the issue,” Rep. Neal said.
“Unfortunately, as we’ve seen with the reaction of some in Delaware already, more dialogue is needed. I look forward to future discussions regarding the importance of protecting the rights of those seeking gender-affirming care in Delaware.”
If the votes are there to pass it, I don’t see why they shouldn’t pass it and then open a dialogue on the issue, but what do I know? All I know is that the haters won’t be any less hateful in January.
Seaford ‘One LLC, One Vote’ bill not considered in House. I can’t resist quoting from the two Solomoronic leaders of the House Of Representatives:
During the May 10 meeting, Speaker of the House Pete Schwartzkopf, D-Rehoboth Beach, said he was “caught in a pickle” because he did not think it was a good idea to allow artificial entities to vote, but felt the need to honor the wants of small-town governments.
That was echoed by House Majority Leader Valerie Longhurst, D-Bear, who said lawmakers, mayors and city councilpersons are expected to honor the wishes of those who elected them.
“There’s no ifs, ands or buts about it — they go after you and they take you out if you’re not, quote unquote, what they want,” she said. “I don’t necessarily agree with (the bill) either … but you’re the representative and not me, so I honor that.”
Hmmm, where would they draw the line? Slavery, Satanic sacrifice? Any violation of one person, one vote is, by its nature, unconstitutional. Full stop.
Ho-kay, here is yesterday’s Session Activity Report. The Budget Bill was finally introduced. Also, we’ve got the ‘one-time’ appropriations bill. I encourage all of you to go through them and see what skulduggery resides therein. I’ll try, if my heavy social itinerary permits.
As the legislative days dwindle, so too does committee activity. Meaning, the House will run an Agenda today. An extensive one at that. Mostly trying to clear a backlog of House bills so that they might receive Senate consideration before June 30. I like HB 10(Heffernan), which establishes targets for the acquisition of electric buses. Notable by its absence from the Agenda is SB 51(Paradee). You remember SB 51–which minimizes the use of polystyrene and plastic in restaurants. It’s been out of committee in the House since April 26. Will Our Pal Val arrange to bury it again this year like she did last year? We’re watching.
Only one bill of note on the Senate Agenda. It basically eliminates the requirement that Rethugs have any spots on the Wilmington Housing Authority. Don’t know why.
The House has only one committee meeting scheduled today. One key House bill will be considered. HB 227 (Lambert) ‘makes various amendments to the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act to improve compliance with its testing and reporting requirements.’
Today’s Senate Committee highlights (remember, kids, I will only look at Senate bills since we’ve already looked at House bills that have moved to the Senate):
…is the first leg of an amendment to the Delaware Constitution that does all of the following: (1) Under Section 1 of this Act, limits the disenfranchisement of an individual who is convicted of a felony to the period during which the individual is imprisoned due to the felony, or until the individual is pardoned, whichever comes first. (2) Brings Section 1 of this Act into conformity with the United States Constitution and federal law. Section 1 of this Act specifically does all of the following: (1) Removes the ability of the General Assembly to impose the forfeiture of the right of suffrage as a punishment for a crime. (2) Removes the list of felonies resulting in permanent disenfranchisement. (3) Prohibits making the re-enfranchisement of an individual who is convicted of a felony contingent on the payment of a monetary payment of any kind.
There’s more, but this is a great bill from my State Senator (and future AG?).
SB 186 (Huxtable) ‘enables Sussex County to use the Voluntary School Assessment (VSA) to address the impact of residential development on school capacity’. Gee, linking development to school capacity. What a unique concept. Sen. Huxtable may already be the best modern D senator from Sussex County that I can recall. Sen. George Howard Bunting is the only one who rivals him.
Sorry for the tardiness of this post. The legislative information system was (a) slow, then (b) unavailable, for much of the morning. It’s working fine now, so check out those money bills and report your findings here.
Would love to see an assessment of the cost in schools and roads for new developments, dare say pressure and assorted “campaign contributions” from developers has stifled this in the past. Dare say it’s a lot higher then most people know. This area is in full on Long Island mode with big developments popping up everywhere, including across the street from me. I know what the end product looks like, and you won’t like it. Some will make millions and the rest of us will get to live with it.
I hear a lot of the same sentiments from families who moved to Middletown atwo decades ago to get their kids into Appo. They moved into new houses just beyond the edge of town. Now they are complaining the area is overbuilt and congested. They acknowledge the housing crisis but would rather all these new families move to dense apartment blocks in the city, so that they can continue to enjoy their McMansion without having to share the open space
1) Val’s district does not include Seaford, so SHE has no obligation to vote as those constituents want on that bill, and
2) yes, voters remove you from office if they don’t like the way you vote, that’s how this works, but it doesn’t mean you should sell your soul in order to stay in office.
1) Val’s district does not include Seaford, so SHE has no obligation to vote as those constituents want on that bill, and
2) yes, voters remove you from office if they don’t like the way you vote, that’s how this works, but it doesn’t mean you should sell your soul in order to stay in office.
The irony in this case is that neither Val nor Pete have any idea HOW Seaford’s constituents would want them to vote. The Town Council split 2-2, and the Mayor cast the tie-breaking vote.
Thank you so much for this bill, Senator Gay. I implore readers to contact your legislators for their support.