Page 11 - Delaware Lawyer - Fall 2021

section, that the subject matter of a bill be expressed in its title, originated with the Georgia Constitution of 1798. The constitution of almost every state now requires that the title of a bill adequately express its subject matter. These provi- sions are intended to ensure informed legislative action, as reflected in the 1897 debates on the Delaware Constitution.
Consistent with the foregoing histori- cal background, the Delaware Supreme Court has recognized that the two gen- eral requirements of this section were included in the Delaware Constitution of 1897 in order to “prevent deception of the general public and the members of the General Assembly by titles to bills which give no adequate information of the subject matter of the bills.”22 The single-subject and title provisions in this section are intended to assure sufficient notice that “legislation, the content of which was inadequately brought to the public attention, or so-called sleeper leg- islation” does not slip through the Gen- eral Assembly.23
If a bill contains multiple subjects or the title of the bill is such that it traps the unwary into inaction, it must be struck down as a violation of this section of the Delaware Constitution. Neverthe- less, the two general requirements in this section are not applicable to legislation proposing amendments to the Delaware Constitution. An amendment to the Delaware Constitution requires greater notice to the public and to legislators, since all amendments must be enacted by two consecutive sessions of the Gen- eral Assembly. Consequently, the threat of “sleeper legislation” is not present with regard to proposed constitutional amendments.
The exception for appropriation bills to the two general requirements in this section of the Delaware Constitution is more permissive than any other state con- stitution. It provides that a bill appropri- ating money for public purposes is free of the restraint that it be limited to one sub- ject. There are only four states, including
Delaware, in which a “one-subject” limi- tation provision in the state’s constitution is exempted as to all appropriation bills. Of these four states, only the Delaware Constitution provides that any bill appro- priating money for public purposes is also excepted from the title requirements.
Text and Context
The interpretation of an unambigu- ous state constitutional text is particularly important in construing state constitu- tional rights that have a corollary in the United States Constitution. The federal Bill of Rights became effective in 1791. Since then, state constitutions have been re-written and amended many times. If the text of a state constitutional right is not identical to the text of an analogous provision in the federal Bill of Rights, the reason for the difference must be ascer- tained. Frequently, the differences reflect a state’s decision to provide greater rights to its citizens. The right to a trial by jury and the right to bear arms in the Dela- ware Constitution are good examples.
The context of the text in a state consti- tution is also important. Unlike the United States Constitution, with its list of amend- ments at the end of the document, state constitutional amendments are incorporat- ed into the text. Consequently, reading the state constitution provides no insight into when the provision first appeared. There- fore, when a specific provision is at issue in a state constitution, the history and origin of that particular text must be examined. In Claudio v. State, the Delaware Supreme Court examined the history and origin of the right to a trial by jury as “heretofore” and traced it back to the 1776 Delaware Constitution.24
Conclusion
The United States Constitution, as amended, and the succession of state con- stitutions since 1776, reflect the history of how democracy has operated within America. Federal and state constitutional traditions have remained distinct from the inception of the American republic. The
United States Constitution has retained its original character as a document of enumerated powers that fixed the basic structure of government, allocated power among its three branches, and has been amended infrequently.
American federalism expressly con- templated that when states exercised their residual sovereignty, the structure and the rights in a state constitution would not be a mirror image of the United States Constitution. Many differences are exem- plified in the Delaware Constitution. In Delaware, state constitution making and amending has been a recurring process within the broader political, social, eco- nomic and historical contexts of time and place that are unique to Delaware.
NOTES
1. RandyJ.Holland,TheDelawareStateCon- stitution, 2d. ed. Oxford University Press, 2017. 2. Id.
3. Id.
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Claudio v. State, 585 A.2d 1278 (Del. 1991). 8. Fountainv.State,275A.2d251,251(Del. 1971) (emphasis added).
9. Doe v. Wilmington Hous. Auth., 88 A.3d 654 (Del. 2014).
10. Id.at665.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. Griffinv.State,47A.3d487,491(Del. 2012).
14. Id.
15. Id. at 488.
16. SeeShortv.State,1991WL12101,at*1 (Del. Jan. 14, 1991).
17. See Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 03-IB04, 2003 WL 1088725, at *1- 2 (Feb. 4, 2003) (discussing 11 Del. C. §§ 1488(a)1, (3), and (7)); Smith v. State, 2005 WL 2149410 (Del. Aug. 17, 2005) (illus- trating the interplay between this constitutional provision and statutory authority).
18. 1DebatesandProceedingsoftheConsti- tutional Convention of the State of Delaware 233 (1958).
19. See. e.g., Perry v. Decker, 457 A.2d 357, 362 (Del. 1983).
20. See Turnbull v. Fink, 668 A.2d 1370, 1382 (Del. 1995).
21. Turnbullv.Fink,668A.2d1370,1382-83 (Del. 1995).
22. Opinion of the Justices, 194 A.2d 855, 856 (Del. 1963).
23. Id.
24. Claudiov.State,585A.2d1278(Del. 1991).
FALL 2021 DELAWARE LAWYER 9