Instead of bothering to go to Dover for meetings of Delaware’s General Assembly, most members of the House or Senate could simply mail in their votes on whatever legislation is being considered. That way they could still collect their $42,750 base salary (plus added pay for committee assignments and leadership roles) for their part-time work and keep a few more cars off the Route 13 and Route 1 highways.
In nearly all cases, the results would be the same as if they had been physically present for their votes.
By far most of the winning votes would be simply “yes,” regardless of what was in the bills. As matters stand, these would be votes by the Democrats in the General Assembly, because the Democratic Party controls both houses. If instead the Republicans were in dual control the “yes” unity would likely be similar.
It works this way. In controlling the legislative agenda in the House, for example, Speaker Robert Gilligan is the gatekeeper who says “yes” or “no” as far as what bills are put on the House legislative agenda for votes.
By the time a bill has come to Gilligan’s attention, select members of the two parties usually have reviewed it. If there is two-party agreement, the bill passes. If only Democratic legislators favor a bill, it usually receives their unanimous “yes” votes, enough to send the bill on to the Senate. If the Senate considers a bill first, the same treatment applies. And thus a bill becomes law, assuming Gov. Jack Markell signs it instead of using a rare veto.
Ginger Gibson explains how this Delaware system works in an excellent voting analysis in the Sunday News Journal. It takes the specific details which she uses to illustrate how bad the system is and how it shuts out the public in terms of debate on matters of a prickly nature.
One bill that never reached even a committee vote in the session that ended June 30 would have disrupted this cozy little Delaware system, which is a blemish on the legislative process.
Senate Bill 20 would have created an independent commission to draw up new and well balanced legislative election districts based on the federal census conducted every 10 years.
Years ago I attended a meeting of legislators at which maps were used as various oddly shaped election districts were being considered and drawn.. One party was as bad as the other in terms of protecting turf favorable to their clumps of likely voters. Because different parties controlled the two houses, however, there was at least room for some trading of advantages. That does not apply if one party holds sway in both legislative bodies.
It will take voter outrage at this poor system to force a change. But if the 10-year window is missed, the opportunity for timely action is lost.
