Delaware General Assembly Pre-Game Show: Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The decision to delay consideration of casino expansion in Delaware until next session has removed the biggest wild card remaining on the General Assembly’s docket. With modestly-improving revenue forecasts, it looks like a relatively pro-forma denouement for the legislature this year. No doubt the House Rethugs will cry some more about not being appreciated, which is what happens after you’ve lost control of the House after 24 years, and you’ve come up pretty short on the recruitment end of things.
This, however, is no reason for people to stop paying attention to what’s going on. June, especially late June, is when a lot of legislation is hustled through the General Assembly w/o much in the way of public consideration. It is when the lobbyists and other Delaware Way denizens game the system to the public’s disadvantage. A lot of it takes place in JFC and Bond Bill Committee, making in-depth reporting of those meetings all the more important.
But plenty of it takes place in the last two weeks of session, when bills often are introduced and considered under ‘suspension of rules’. For the rest of session, rules apply requiring bills to be referred to committees and considered. But, in the last two weeks, far too many bills of dubious worth are considered w/o the normal rules applying. Which raises the obvious questions: (a) Why? and (b) If this bill is so damn important, why wasn’t it introduced until this late in session? The answer to both is the same: Because these are not the kind of bills that would pass the ‘smell’ test under ordinary legislative circumstances, and some powerful people/institutions, often armed with political contributions, want them passed.
Either or both chamber(s) would do the public a service by severely restricting those bills that could be considered under suspension of rules. I’ll not be holding my breath.
On to today’s agendas. Let’s start in the House, primarily b/c there’s a bill on that agenda that has me scratching my head. That bill is HB 384(Keeley), which, for purposes of reapportionment, would exclude from the count those incarcerated at Delaware prison facilities. Based on the bill’s sponsorship, this bill is being sought by the City of Wilmington.
First, let’s talk about the census and reapportionment. Following the once-a-decade national census, legislatures must reapportion to accurately reflect the population of their respective states. Since Delaware has only one U. S. representative, no Federal redistricting is required. Only a legislative reapportionment to allocate the 41 representative districts and 21 senatorial districts by current population. Reapportionment is based on population, not on registered voters. So, once the total population of the state is determined, you would divide that number by 41 to get the mean population by RD, and you divide the number by 21 to get the mean population by SD. The rule-of-thumb in the General Assembly over the past two redistrictings, at least, has been that a deviation of no more than plus or minus 5% from the mean is permissible. That’s still a lot of wiggle room, and it enabled Wayne Smith to optimize the number of rural Rethug RD’s in Kent and Sussex in 2002. Democratic Reps. DiLiberto and Brady were the principal victims of this plan.
The issue with HB 384 is that it’s not clear where these ‘residents’ will be counted. This is not an issue of their voting rights, it is an issue of an accurate counting and reapportionment. HB 384 states that: “The General Assembly…shall not count as part of the population in a given district boundary any incarcerated individual who:
(1) Was incarcerated in a State or Federal correctional facility, as determined by the decennial census; and
(2) Was not a resident of the State before the person’s incarceration.”
Here’s the problem. These people do exist, hence, by Federal law, they must be counted. Whether by choice or not, they are Delaware residents. If they are not to be counted here, then where are they to be counted? Must every state pass similar legislation regarding their prison populations in order to realize an accurate count nationwide? On the face of it, this appears potentially to violate Federal law. What say ye, barristers?
But that’s not all. HB 384 also provides that Delaware residents who are incarcerated shall be counted for redistricting purposes, “at the individual’s last known residence prior to incarceration.” Again, whether or not by choice, this bill counts based on someone’s previous address, not their current one, something I doubt jibes with Federal law.
I suspect that this bill is well-intentioned, and likely seeks to lessen the financial burden on a municipality that has so many non-taxable parcels within it. But, I question whether it would pass constitutional muster.
One other bill of interest that I’ve not previously discussed is HB 388(Hudson), which increases the penalty for vehicle owners who have not registered their vehicles here after establishing Delaware residency. The fine would go from $25(!) to $400 for a first offense. About bleepin’ time!
The Senate Agenda also has a couple of interesting bills. SB 254(Henry) provides the state flexibility to utilize fine $$’s from nursing facilities to improve access to community-based alternatives to long-term care, and to improve conditions in long-term care facilities. This is a big step forward from the Vince Meconi/Carol Ellis days of abandoning their public responsibilities to ensure the safety of nursing home residents. Gov. Markell’s got a good team in place here.
Sen. Henry is also the sponsor of SB 255, which would remove the prohibition against persons convicted of any drug felony from receiving federal food benefit assistance. Let’s see what kind of opposition this bill gins up.
I also like Sen. Hall-Long’s SB 242, which “require(s) DART to publish all route, schedule and fare information for public transit routes on a website maintained by the Corporation to be available for download by the public and third parties at no charge.” I swear, sometimes I think that DART’s mission is to make public transit as difficult as possible. The very fact that such legislation is necessary speaks to that.
Well, as Ken Kesey once said, “Either you’re on the bus, or you’re not on the bus.”
I’ll be gassed up (so what else is new?) and ready to go again tom’w. I, however, have no intention of posting my schedule. Just guarding against mechanical or mental breakdown…
Tags: Delaware General Assembly; Reapportionment; Motor Vehicles; DART; Ken Kesey
Bulo…
I also like Sen. Hall-Long’s SB 242, which “require(s) DART to publish all route, schedule and fare information for public transit routes on a website maintained by the Corporation to be available for download by the public and third parties at no charge.”
DART Site. The only difference I see between the bill and the existing site is maybe that it needs to be independent of the state’s web structure. That’s the only thing I could come up with. When I navigated the site, I saw linked routes along with PDF downloadable maps and fare schedules. SEPTA (R2) was cross-linked, as well.
Now, I have to wonder, what is Sen H-L’s bill accomplishing here? Is it to hold DART’s feet to the fire? Is it to get them off of the state web site structure? If it’s to give them the boot, is it more expensive or cheaper for them to maintain their own site? I ask, because I truly don’t know. It could also be that DART is seeking autonomy with their web platform and this is simply procedural to allow that to happen. Again, I do not know.
Smitty, DART doesn’t need a bill to separate them from the state’s web structure, quite a few agencies (DEDO, Lottery, etc) are not hosted on the State’s web servers. I’m also not sure what this legislation is trying to accomplish (unless DART’s website was really crappy about 4 months ago)
What I wish this legislation did was to allow for Para transit reservations to be made/canceled on their web site.
Mark – then based on your reply, I am even further into not knowing the point of the bill. I think what you just said in your closing sentence, though, would be a great improvement, but one where legislation should hopefully not be required.
OK, just looked at SB242 and I don’t think it will really change anything vs what you can see today, other than it mandates them to update the information at least twice per year. Maybe outdated info was an issue before? Regardless, it puts the mandate in place.
As a frequent user the site has been static for a couple years. Back in 07 in addidion to PDF schedules there was a more user friendly HTML based search. That was probably eliminated due to cost factors. All in all the site does what its supposed to do. I am curious as to the need for legislation?
As to sen Henry’s SB255, good legislation, but I fear DOA
I’d ordinarily agree w/you, JP. But DeLuca’s on the bill, there are a couple of R’s, and the D’s control both chambers. Looks like it’s got a shot.
If SB 242 isn’t necessary, then I’m not sure what’s the purpose. I think it’s to require timely updating of the site, but that’s a pure guess.
I think it’s to require timely updating of the site, but that’s a pure guess.
Bolt yourself down, ‘Bulo, but you and I agree. It looks completely procedural to me with the intent to lock down a mandate to keep it up-to-date.
HB 384 seems part of a nationwide effort to have prison inmates counted at their home address — not in the usually rural areas where they are incarcerated. There are plenty of fairly rural places all over the US who have taken up prisons as their growth industry — places where the sudden residence of hundreds more people artificially inflate the numbers of “locals”, leading to something called prison gerrymandering. Where this rural area now is eligible for more representation or more benefits because they count these prisoners as residents.
For 2011, the Feds give states the option of changing how prisoners are counted and this bill looks like it is taking advantage of that new rule.
Does the redistricting/reapportionment get voted on during the current legislative session?
Then why would the Wilmington delegation sponsor legislation enabling inmates housed in Wilmington to be counted elsewhere? Is Gander Hill technically not within the city limits? If that’s the case, I’d understand the impetus for the bill.
Sam: No. The census is not yet completed. Reapportionment will take place during the next legislative session beginning in January, and will be in effect for the 2012 elections.
They are likely betting that they will more than make up the numbers lost from Gander Hill with inmates with last known addresses in Wilmington from other facilities.
You could well be right, Cass. If so, the lack of sponsorship from Smyrna and Sussex County (other prison sites) indicates that the bill may have a real tough time. For many Kent and Sussex long-term legislators, there is still a plantation mentality when it comes to Wilmington. That goes for some New Castle County legislators as well.
Senate Bill 20, which would turn the job of redistricting over to an independent commission, has been stuck in the Senate Finance Committee since January 2009. In what should be a surprise to no one, that committee is chaired by Nancy Cook. It looks like this will die via the desk drawer veto (which many of you thought had disappeared), but in case you want to make your feelings known, the other members of the committee are Cathy Cloutier, Dori Connor, Bruce Ennis, David McBride and Harris McDowell.
Connor and Ennis are co-sponsors of this legislation. Contact all 6 members and find out why this bill has not seen the light of day for nearly 18 months. (Well, we all know why, but let them know we don’t want to do business that way any longer.)
After what happened on Rehoboth beach this weekend, they might just have to legislate transgendered men with breast implants cannot go topless on Delaware beaches. Families with children and lifeguards contacted police, however they are technically still men and couldnt be made to cover thier female breasts? What a screwed up mess. Check out the story at http://www.wgmd.com
I understand that the horrible trade-off for Peterson’s open government legislation was the demise of the ability for Senators to petition a bill out of a ‘drawer’.
We need SB 20, Badly. And SB 255.
Anon – were these male to female transgenders or female to male. If the former, then they are transgender women. And if they were MTF women, then yes, they should have covered up. Then again, I trust WGMD to put out a truthfully accurate news story as much as I trust Rush Limbaugh to use over-the-counter drugs responsibly.
And what do we do in the case of a gentleman with man boobs?
Delmar DustPan has a link to the blog with pictures of these ‘gents’ and the 4 police cars that were called in. The ‘gents’ were successfully persuaded to cover up. Really great photos, btw!
MJ- the article says MTF. I guess man boobs are natural. Im not attacking here, its just a unusual situation. I think this is the kind of stunts that will set back the gay movement?
You guys missed the crucial piece of language in SB 242: “generally accepted open data format”
SB 242 requires DART to publish the transit information in an open data format. PDF’s are NOT open data.
This bill will allow Delaware citizens to use Google Transit to get from place to place, and allow developers to create applications (for iPhones, etc.,) that will make it easier for residents to use Delaware’s public transit system.
It’s a really good, forward thinking bill.
http://www.google.com/transit
Thank you for clearing that up. That’s one of the reasons I highlight these bills. Sometimes the collective knowledge of this community can offer explanations that the legislation doesn’t always offer on its own.
Besides, it gets us back on track from the dreaded ‘man boob’ off-topic thread.
That is a good idea, then (SB242). I have to imagine, though, that some resident techie (in Leg Hall or DART) came up with the idea and not anyone on the bill (apologies to those involved I am friendly -and not friendly- with, but seriously…c’mon).