Rep. Sean Lynn

The State of Delaware previously offered an employer match for state employee contributions to the deferred compensation program. The purpose of the match was to help state employees save and build wealth for retirement and to enable state government to recruit and retain talent by offering a valuable retirement savings benefit. In July 2008, during the Great Recession, the State suspended the employer match to cut costs. Every year since fiscal year 2008, the General Assembly has written in the annual appropriations bill: “It is the intent of the General Assembly that this program be reinstated when funding becomes available.” This Act updates the laws governing the employer match in anticipation of the General Assembly restoring the match this session and increases the maximum match to $20 per pay period. This Act also eases restrictions on which participants are eligible for the match. To help employees who are unable to save for retirement because of their student loan burden, this Act enables a match for employee’s student loan payments with employer contributions to their deferred compensation account. Congress enabled employers to make this type of matching contribution with the passage of the SECURE 2.0 Act, which was included in the Federal Fiscal Year 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. This Act provides the Plans Management Board with the discretion to determine which plan the matching contributions should be deposited into.

This Act is the first leg of an amendment to the Delaware Constitution to make clear that the right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and may not be infringed without a showing of a compelling state interest. The U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition against the State depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law to prevent arbitrary or unreasonable action by the State. Specifically, in 1923, the Court, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 stated: “While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness [of] the liberty thus guaranteed [under the Fourteenth Amendment], the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” In the 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a law making the use of contraceptives a criminal offense violated the right to privacy. The Court held that within the Bill of Rights, “Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers ‘in any house’ in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: ‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’" More recently, in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the Court stated that “our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.” In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, the Lawrence Court noted that the Court previous held that “[t]hese matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” In reaching its ruling, the Lawrence Court held that the petitioners were “entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. ‘It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.’” The General Assembly proposes the enactment of this constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right of individual privacy to secure for Delawareans the rights the U.S. Supreme Court has previously found emanate from the federal constitution in the face of concerns regarding the continued effect of these U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Amending the Delaware Constitution requires not only the passing of the changes in this Act but also passage of the same changes after the next general election by the next General Assembly. This Act requires a greater than majority vote for passage because § 1 of Article XVI of the Delaware Constitution requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly to amend the Delaware Constitution.

Maddy summaryThis bill amends Delaware House Rules to require the Chief Clerk to accept all bills and resolutions for prefile, preventing the Clerk from refusing to file them. It directly affects every legislator and bill sponsor by ensuring all submitted proposals are officially recorded without administrative barriers. The key provision explicitly states: "The Chief Clerk may not refuse to accept a bill or resolution for filing under paragraph (b)(1) of this rule." This is a procedural change to streamline the legislative filing process, with no substantive policy impact.

This Act creates civil and criminal liability for a corporation or other business organized under the laws of this State that sells, distributes, or dispenses a drug that is used as part of a government-sanctioned execution. Under this Act, the highest-ranking officer of the organization that sells, distribute, or dispenses a drug that the officer knows or should know will be used in any capacity in a government-sanctioned execution is guilty of a class A felony and is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000. If the organization is a corporation, its corporate charter will also be revoked.

This amendment to the House Rules permits a Representative to set a date certain for a bill to be heard on the House agenda, akin to a similar rule in the Senate.

This amendment to the House Rules adds a Rule 66A, which sets forth the procedure by which an officer may be removed from office by a Bill of Address under § 13 of Article III of the Delaware Constitution.

This Act updates the definition of "sexual orientation" throughout the Delaware Code by adding asexuality and pansexuality. Asexuality refers to individuals with little to no sexual attraction to other individuals, although asexual individuals may desire emotionally intimate relationships with other individuals. Pansexuality refers to individuals who are attracted sexually or romantically, or both, to another individual regardless of that individual's sex or gender identity. This Act also makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual.

According to the American Cancer Society, prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of death from cancer in men. It is estimated that about 1 in 41 men will die of prostate cancer. According to ZERO Prostate Cancer, Black men face serious health care disparities regarding prostate cancer. 1 in 6 Black men will develop prostate cancer in their lifetime compared to 1 in 8 men overall. Black men are also 1.7 times more likely to be diagnosed with, and 2.1 times more likely to die from, prostate cancer than white men.  HB 302 requires all group, blanket, and individual health insurance policies to cover prostate screening for men at risk of prostate cancer. This Substitute bill broadens the definition of “prostate screening” to include any medically necessary and clinically appropriate method for the detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer, including a digital rectal exam and prostate specific antigen test, and associated laboratory work. This Substitute bill also clarifies the ages at which prostate screenings must be covered, consistent with the American Cancer Society guidelines, as follows: (1) Age 50 for men at average risk of developing prostate cancer; (2) Age 45 for men at high risk of developing prostate cancer, including African American men and men who have a first degree relative diagnosed with prostate cancer; and (3) Age 40 for men at even higher risk for prostate cancer, including men who have more than one first degree relative diagnosed with prostate cancer.  This Substitute bill also extends the effective date to health insurance policies modified after December 31, 2025, and makes technical corrections.

This act requires that an owner be reimbursed up to $1,500 annually for veterinary care expenses paid by the owner for the care of a law-enforcement canine retired from a police department of a political subdivision of the State of Delaware. The Department of Safety and Homeland Security is the implementing agency for this act.

Federal and Delaware law protect the right to vote and the rights of individuals with disabilities to have equal access to voting places and public facilities. Nonetheless, recent information suggests that a substantial number of polling places in Delaware are either inaccessible to persons with disabilities or lack accessible parking, infringing on the right of all eligible persons to vote in this State. This substitute, like House Bill No. 293, requires that the Department of Elections ensure that polling places selected for elections are accessible to voters with disabilities and elderly voters. This substitute adds a provision that in addition to being accessible, the accessibility features are available to voters in any election. Like House Bill No. 293, this substitute allows certain exceptions for states of emergency, or for circumstances in which no accessible polling place in a particular polling area is available and the Election Commissioner ensures that those voters impacted are provided with an alternative accessible polling place or alternative means for casting a ballot upon advance request. This substitute limits the states of emergency that would allow an exception to natural disasters or other emergencies that render a polling place unsafe or unusable. This substitute also adds a provision allowing any person with information that the Department has not complied with this section to file an administrative complaint with the Department.