Opinion ID: 1532443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Single Subject and Title Provisions

Text: House Bill No. 31 is unconstitutional for a third reason: it addresses at least two distinct and separate subjects. The first subject is this Court's November 23, 2004 decision in Evans v. State, which House Bill No. 31 purports to declare null and void. [57] The second subject is the establishment of prospective standards for the judicial interpretation and application of Delaware laws. [58] These constitute two distinct and separate subjects of legislation. The official synopsis of House Bill No. 31 so reflects, by addressing each subject in separate paragraphs: This bill declares the case of Ward T. Evans v. State of Delaware null and void.... The bill also established specific standards for judicial officers to use when interpreting or construing Delaware law. [59] By combining two distinct and separate subjects in a single bill, House Bill No. 31 violates the single-subject provision of Article II, Section 16 of the Delaware Constitution. [60] Article II, § 16 of the Delaware Constitution reads as follows: No bill or joint resolution, except bills appropriating money for public purposes, shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. [61] The provision that a bill contain only one subject and that the title of the bill express its subject are distinct requirements having different historical origins. [62] Nevertheless, these two requirements are frequently combined in a single provision, such as Article II, § 16 of the Delaware Constitution, to achieve a common purpose. [63] The potential problem caused by an omnibus bill is an uninformed legislative vote  a problem recognized even by the Romans who, in 98 B.C., enacted the Lex Caecilia Didia to prohibit the adoption of laws which contained unrelated provisions  the lex satura. [64] The omnibus bill continued to be a cause for concern in colonial America prior to the Revolutionary War. [65] Accordingly, the constitution of nearly every state now contains a general requirement that each legislative act be limited to a single subject. [66] Almost every state constitution requires that the title of a bill adequately express its subject matter. [67] These title provisions are also intended to insure informed legislative action, as the 1897 debates on the Delaware Constitution reflect: Oftentimes bills have been introduced in the Legislature with very harmless titles, but amendments have been added to those bills and when they have passed both Houses, they are entirely different from what they were originally. [68] The two general requirements of Article II, § 16 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. [69] The single-subject and title provisions in Article II, § 16 are intended to assure sufficient notice that legislation, the content of which was inadequately brought to the public attention, or so-called sleeper legislation does not slip through the General Assembly. [70] If a bill contains multiple subjects or the title of the bill would trap the unwary into inaction, it violates Article II, § 16 of the Delaware Constitution. [71] House Bill No. 31 graphically illustrates the dangers of an uninformed legislative vote where the title of a bill is inadequate. This Court has always looked to the language of any statute when interpreting its provisions. [72] Nevertheless, sections 5403(b) and (c) of House Bill No. 31 provided for judicial officers to strictly interpret or construe legislative intent and to use the utmost restraint in interpreting or construing the laws of this State. House Bill No. 31 provided absolutely no notice, however, that it impacted at least sixty other statutes in which the General Assembly stated that those statutes must be liberally or broadly construed to accomplish the General Assembly's intent, e.g., Del.Code Ann. tit. 19, § 721 in the Employment Practices Act (this subchapter shall be liberally construed to promote the full employment opportunity of qualified handicapped persons who seek such opportunity in good faith.). [73]