House Bill 10 passed in the Senate in late March. This is the second leg of a constitutional amendment to make technical corrections to the Delaware Constitution. 

In part HB 10 makes the language of the Delaware Constitution “gender silent.” How was that done?

Code revisors went through our state Constitution to ensure that masculine or feminine pronouns are not used unless the usage requires otherwise. 

There is a 827-word synopsis to the bill, which has a total count of 36,836 words.

I asked how many attorney hours went into going through the Constitution to make it “gender silent.”

An exact number was not available, but it was admittedly a time-consuming project.

I was intrigued by something I came across while going through the 36,836-word bill.

Article II, Section 2 of the Delaware Constitution contains these instructions:

This  State is also hereby divided into twenty-one 21 Senatorial Districts, from each of which shall be chosen, by the qualified electors thereof, one Senator. 

In New Castle County there shall be seven Senatorial Districts, numbered from one to seven inclusive; in Kent County, seven Senatorial Districts, numbered from one to seven inclusive; and in Sussex County, seven Senatorial Districts from one to seven inclusive.

“Since the Constitution transcends the Delaware Code, shouldn’t we comply with that seven-per-county provision?” I asked.

Lt. Gov. Kyle Gay said, “Good try,” but then Mark Cutrona, director, Division of Legislative Services, was brought in to discuss the issue. Here is his explanation:

The constitutional provision providing for each county to have 7 Senators was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964 in a case named Roman v. Sincock. 

The court held that Delaware’s apportionment practices, as codified in its state constitution both before and after a 1963 amendment, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

State constitutions cannot have provisions that violate the U.S. Constitution and, therefore, the Delaware Constitution provision is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. 

Further, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Delaware’s system of having one upper house apportioned on a geographical basis and one lower house apportioned on population basis was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause since population is the only permissible guide to apportionment.

Senator Stephanie Hansen asked why so much time would be taken to make “technical corrections” and something so obviously wrong was not part of the process.

The answer was that the purpose of HB 10 was to focus on technical corrections, including making the constitution “gender silent.”

So when you are combing through for technical improprieties and run into conspicuously outdated material, you just ignore it?

Some of you may recall that I introduced an amendment to the Delaware Constitution a few years ago to change the voting age to 18.

After passing unanimously in the House and the Senate during the 151^st General Assembly and unanimously in the Senate last year in the 152^nd General Assembly, my amendment died in the House Administration Committee.

Delaware’s Constitution may contain some glaring violations of the federal law, but at least we are on the way to making our Constitution “gender silent.” 

Does this make you happy?

Your comments are welcome. Send to bryant.richardson@delaware.gov.