Opinion ID: 2550843
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Does SB 84 Violate the Single-Subject Provision Of The Delaware Constitution?

Text: Smith next claims that SB 84 is invalid because it violates the single-subject requirement of the Delaware Constitution. This argument, which overlaps somewhat with Smith's separation of powers claim, runs as follows: Sections 1-4 of SB 84 purport to address the legal definition of parent. Sections 5 and 6, however, are a legislative effort to exercise fundamental judicial powerswhich is a separate subject under Evans. Combining those two separate subjects into one statute, therefore, violates the single-subject requirement. Article II, section 16 of the Delaware Constitution provides that [n]o bill or joint resolution, except bills appropriating money for public purposes, shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. [43] As explained in Evans, [t]he 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. [44] That is, article II, section 16 is intended to prevent the introduction in the legislature of a bill with a seemingly harmless title[], but by the time it is enacted by both legislative chambers, it has collected such numerous amendments that its ultimate subject matter has changed entirely from what it was initially. [45] For that reason, a bill that contains multiple subjects or whose title would trap the unwary into inaction violates the Delaware Constitution. [46] In Evans, we pointed out that HB 31 graphically illustrates the dangers of an uninformed legislative vote where the title of [the] bill is inadequate. [47] The first part of HB 31 expressed a legislative intent to declare null and void this Court's earlier decision in Evans v. State , [48] whereas in the second part, the General Assembly established itself as the ultimate arbiter of the intent, meaning, and construction of its laws. [49] Further, it required judicial officers to strictly interpret or construe legislative intent and to use the utmost restraint in interpreting or construing the laws of this State. [50] The title of HB 31, however, gave no notice that it would impact 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. [51] We held, for those reasons, that HB 31 unconstitutionally contained two separate and distinct subjects of legislationthe first being to null[ify] and void an earlier decision of this Court, and the second being to confer upon the General Assembly fundamental judicial powers. [52] The legislation involved in this case differs markedly from that invalidated in Evans. Unlike HB 31, SB 84 does not address multiple subjects. SB 84's title reads AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 13 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO PARENTS. [53] Sections 1-3 add a new subsection to 13 Del. C. § 8-201 that includes de facto parent status as an additional type of legal parent-child relationship. Section 4 amends the statutory definition of parent in 13 Del. C. § 2302 to include a de facto parent. [54] Section 5 states that [t]he provisions of this Act shall have retroactive effect, and Section 6 provides that [n]o Court decision based upon a finding that Delaware does not recognize de facto parent status shall have collateral estoppel or res judicata effect. These latter two Sections fall within the scope of the title's stated subject matter, because they relate to defining, interpreting, and construing de facto parenthood. Nor do Sections 5 and 6 of SB 84 introduce the separate subject of establish[ing] prospective standards for the judicial interpretation and application of Delaware laws, as occurred in Evans. [55] Neither provision would affect at least sixty other statutes, and neither purports to confer upon the General Assembly fundamental judicial powers or to declare the General Assembly as the ultimate arbiter of the intent, meaning, and construction of Delaware law. Section 6 merely specifies the circumstances where the judicial doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata will not apply. Those circumstances all relate to de facto parenthood. [56] In short, Sections 5 and 6 of SB 84 deal only with the one subject identified in SB 84's title parents, and more specifically, de facto parenthood.