Currently, amendments to the Delaware Constitution require a two-thirds majority vote in two consecutive bodies of the General Assembly. But state Rep. Kerri Evelyn Harris has introduced a bill that would require such proposed changes to be approved by voters in a referendum, in lieu of the second body. If her measure is ratified, the process would be: First, legislators would have to pass the amendment. Then, they would pose the question to voters. If the voters subsequently approve the amendment via a 55% majority, then it would become law. Do you think the current process should be changed?
- Exactly what evidence for consideration would be presented in establishing the civics wisdom and preemptive jurisprudence of the common Delaware voter? Finding a responsible handyman is challenging enough. — Greg Doyle
- Yes, citizens should have a say in changes to their constitution. It was created to protect the citizens from the government in the first place. — Howard Brobst
- Changing the constitution should not be easy. Do you believe that, if the state of Delaware was 75% Republican, then the Democrats would be pushing this? Keep the two-thirds. It’s why we elect them. Of course, if they want public involvement, insert that two-thirds of the legal, registered voters must support the amendment before it can receive a second two-thirds vote in the legislature. If not, it cannot move forward. Delaware is out of control with spending, legislation, taxes and the lack of transparency. It’s time for stay-at-home citizens to get out and vote. It’s time to stop the “vote party line at all costs” elections and to start using common sense. The constitution is designed to protect all people, not just the majority. — Keith I. Faulkner
- No. People will vote without knowing what they’re voting on. It’s why we have legislators. — Gary Laing
- How about a blended process? The change would be presented as a nonbinding referendum to legal citizens of Delaware, along with an analysis by an independent, out-of-state third party (with the necessary expertise), outlining the pros, cons and positive and negative impacts that are included in the amendment package. The legislature would then vote, with each member’s vote and the rationale for his/her vote included. This way, if they vote in a way that is contrary to their constituency, they could be voted out of office in subsequent elections, and the change could be reintroduced. It’s messy, but at least it would be transparent and inclusive. — Dominick Orlando
- It should be our decision. — Richard Jester
- I do not believe that any amendment should be changed in any way! Looking at the voter turnout in recent elections and the number of people using “mail-in” ballots, a decision would not represent the entire state. Legislators are voted by their districts to speak for those citizens. It should stay that way. — Cindy Christiansen
- This is literally how the country was founded and is designed. The federal government is supposed to ask the states, and the states are supposed to ask us, and we vote on it. Then, the states send our answers to the federal level, and it passes or fails based on what we, the people, wanted. But that’s not how it works anymore. Now, laws are passed based on who is getting paid for them. — Kyle Hendrix
- Democrats need to stop trying to take total control. — Bob Hice
Join the conversation. Email civiltalk@iniusa.org.
