Sen. Dave Sokola

This legislation removes the automatic suspension of a driver’s license for failure to provide proof of insurance. The Division of Motor vehicles will continue to suspend the registration of the uninsured vehicle. The removal of the automatic license suspension will allow the vehicle owner to get to work, keep a job, so that the driver will be able to obtain vehicle insurance.

The bills eliminates the requirement that an institution provide notary services to parents of new born children for the purpose of executing an acknowledgment of paternity. This bill also eliminates the requirement that an acknowledgment of paternity be notarized and that it only be witnessed by someone who is not a parent or relative of either parent.

Since 1975, the Delaware Population Consortium has prepared a unified set of statewide population projections each year. These projections are used for a variety of purposes including capital planning, policy analysis, comprehensive planning, and transportation planning. All 3 counties are required by State law to utilize these projections to prepare their required comprehensive plans. However, the Delaware Population Consortium does not exist in State law. This Act formally creates the Delaware Population Consortium, identifies its membership and work products, and requires that all counties, municipalities, school districts, and State agencies use the Consortium’s projections for planning and policy purposes.

This Substitute Act takes the place of Senate Bill No. 68 (150th General Assembly) and removes the voluntary certificate of possession process. In all other respects this Act is similar to Senate Bill No. 68. Specifically, this Act prohibits the manufacture, sale, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, receipt, possession, or transport of assault weapons in Delaware, subject to certain exceptions. One exception relevant to individuals is that the Act does not prohibit the possession and transport of firearms that were lawfully possessed or fully applied for before the effective date of this Act; although for these firearms there are certain restrictions relating to their possession and transport after the effective date of this Act. This Act is based on the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (“FSA”) passed in Maryland in the wake of the tragic slaughtering of children on December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The FSA’s assault weapons ban was upheld as constitutional on February 21, 2017, by the full membership of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in the case of Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017). The names Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, Orlando, Las Vegas, and Parkland, among others, have become synonymous with tragic killing of innocent, unsuspecting Americans of all ages and backgrounds, amidst a framework of federal and state laws that have permitted the purchase of weapons designed for the battlefield — not for our schools, our theaters, our places of worship, or our homes. Safety — both for the general public, as well as members of Delaware's law-enforcement community — is the objective of this Act, as it was for the FSA. And, as with the FSA, a primary goal of this Act is to reduce the availability of assault weapons so that when a criminal acts, he or she does so with a less dangerous weapon and less severe consequences. Relying on United States Supreme Court precedent from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), as well as the holdings of its sister circuits, the full Fourth Circuit concluded that the assault weapons banned by the FSA are not protected by the Second Amendment. The Fourth Circuit was convinced that the banned assault weapons are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach. The Fourth Circuit concluded that Maryland had presented extensive uncontroverted evidence demonstrating that the assault weapons outlawed by the FSA are exceptionally lethal weapons of war. The Fourth Circuit also concluded that the evidence showed the difference between the fully automatic and semiautomatic versions of military-style weapons is slight. Further evidence considered by the Fourth Circuit that motivates this Act is as follows: (1) Like their fully automatic counterparts, the banned assault weapons are firearms designed for the battlefield, for the soldier to be able to shoot a large number of rounds across a battlefield at a high rate of speed, and that their design results in a capability for lethality — more wounds, more serious, in more victims — far beyond that of other firearms in general, including other semiautomatic guns. (2) The banned assault weapons have been used disproportionately to their ownership in mass shootings and the murders of law-enforcement officers. (3) The banned assault weapons further pose a heightened risk to civilians in that rounds from assault weapons have the ability to easily penetrate most materials used in standard home construction, car doors, and similar materials, and that criminals armed with the banned assault weapons possess a “military-style advantage” in firefights with law- enforcement officers, as such weapons allow criminals to effectively engage law-enforcement officers from great distances and their rounds easily pass through the soft body armor worn by most law-enforcement officers. (4) Although self-defense is a conceivable use of the banned assault weapons, most individuals choose to keep other firearms for that purpose. (5) Prohibitions against assault weapons will promote public safety by reducing the availability of those armaments to mass shooters and other criminals, by diminishing their especial threat to law-enforcement officers, and by hindering their unintentional misuse by civilians. (6) In many situations, the semiautomatic fire of an assault weapon is more accurate and lethal than the automatic fire. Finding this evidence and these conclusions by the Fourth Circuit to be strongly persuasive of the applicable framework of constitutional rights, and firmly believing that promoting the safety of the Delaware public and Delaware law-enforcement is a paramount function of the Delaware General Assembly, Delaware legislators file this Act in the name of public safety and with adherence to core constitutional principles.

This Act does all of the following: (1) Requires certain registered aircraft owners to pay an annual fee. (2) Provides exceptions for registered aircraft based in this State. (3) Directs the Department to collect fees, as provided for in this Act. (4) Requires the Department to deposit the funds collected under this Act into the Transportation Trust Fund. (5) Requires the Department to file a report with the Controller General by September 1 of each year detailing the revenue received under this subchapter and the expenditures associated with the Department’s responsibilities concerning aviation in this State. This Act takes effect on January 1, 2020.

This Act allows nurse practitioners and physician assistants to recommend medical marijuana for patients. This Act also makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual.

This Act adopts the Uniform Law Commission's Revised Athlete Agents Act ("Revised Act"), revising Chapter 54, Title 24 of the Delaware Code, which is based on the Uniform Law Commission's Uniform Athlete Agents Act ("Uniform Act"). In the early 2000's, Delaware and 42 other states adopted the Uniform Act. Delaware's version of the Uniform Act included a Board of Athlete Agents Examiners ("Board"), which was sunsetted by the Joint Legislative Oversight and Sunset Committee in 2012 and removed from the Delaware Code by Senate Bill 184 of the 146th General Assembly (78 Del. Laws, c. 376). In addition to removing provisions related to the Board, Senate Bill 184 also removed provisions requiring athlete agents doing business in Delaware to be registered and subject to administrative oversight. In 2015, the Uniform Law Commission adopted the Revised Act to enhance protections for student athletes and educational institutions, create a uniform body of athlete agent registration information, and simplify the registration process. The changes made to the Uniform Act by the Revised Act became necessary as athlete agent tactics have become more advanced and the industry has become more sophisticated. The need for the Revised Act is highlighted by a recent FBI investigation into athlete agent activities related to the college basketball programs at a number of Division I schools. The Revised Act provides additional safeguards for student athletes by requiring that athlete agents be licensed and that agency contracts contain specific notice provisions. The Revised Act has been enacted by 12 states, with 4 of those enactments occurring in 2018, and introduced in 8 states in 2019.

This legislation changes the requirement for the Department of Transportation to submit a Capital Transportation Program from annually to biennially.

This is the first leg of a constitutional amendment creating a "Crossover Day" deadline for each House of the General Assembly to send legislation over to the other House. The annual budget appropriation act, grants-in-aid act, bond and capital improvements act, and resolutions are excluded from this deadline. Currently 26 states, including Maryland, have crossover day deadlines for passing legislation between their two legislative chambers.

This Act permits a terminally ill individual who is an adult resident of Delaware to request and self-administer medication to end the individual's life in a humane and dignified manner if both the individual's attending physician and a consulting physician agree on the individual's diagnosis and prognosis and believe the individual has decision-making capacity, is making an informed decision, and is acting voluntarily. This Act uses terms and definitions that are consistent with other Delaware laws in Title 16, specifically Chapter 25 (regarding advance health-care directives) and Chapter 25A (regarding Delaware Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment). This Act also provides the following procedural safeguards: 1. No one may request medication to end life on behalf of another individual. 2. An individual cannot qualify for medication to end life under this chapter solely because of the individual's age or disability. 3. Both the individual's attending physician and a consulting physician must confirm that the individual has a terminal illness and a prognosis of 6 months or less to live, has decision-making capacity, is making an informed decision, and is acting voluntarily. 4. The individual's attending physician must also provide specific disclosures to the individual to ensure that the individual is making an informed decision, including the presentation of all end of life options which include comfort care, hospice care, and pain control. 5. The individual must be evaluated by a psychiatrist or a psychologist if either the attending or consulting physicians are concerned that the individual lacks decision-making capacity. 6. The individual must complete a witnessed form requesting medication to end life and there are limitations on who can witness the signing of the form. 7. The attending physician must offer the individual the opportunity to rescind the request for medication to end life before writing a prescription for the medication. 8. Two waiting periods must pass before the attending physician may prescribe the medication to end life. 9. An insurer or health-care provider may not deny or alter healthcare benefits otherwise available to an individual based upon the availability of medication to end life or otherwise coerce or require a request for medication to end life as a condition of receiving care. 10. A health-care institution may prohibit a physician from prescribing medication to end life on the health-care institution's premises. 11. The cause of death for an individual who self-administers medication under this Act must be listed as the underlying terminal condition and a request or prescription for or the dispensing of medication under this Act does not constitute a suicide, assisted-suicide, homicide, or euthanasia. 12. People acting in good faith and in accordance with generally accepted health-care standards under this Act have immunity, but those acting with negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct do not have criminal or civil immunity. 13. The Department of Health and Social Services must develop rules and regulations to collect information regarding compliance with this Act, complete an annual statistical report of information collected under this Act, and may review samples of records maintained under this Act. This Act is known as "The Ron Silverio/Heather Block End of Life Options Law" in memory of Ron Silverio and Heather Block, who were passionate advocates that passed away without this option becoming available to them.