Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Notice topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Panel debates bill to remove newspaper notice requirement for constitutional amendments

Senate Executive Committee · May 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House Bill 321 would remove the statutory requirement to publish proposed constitutional amendments in a newspaper and rely on state website postings; supporters cited cost savings and online accessibility while opponents warned some rural and elderly residents lack Internet access and rely on print notices.

Chair Senator Dave Scola presented House Bill 321, which would amend Title 29 to eliminate the requirement that proposed amendments to the Delaware Constitution be disseminated by publication in a newspaper, replacing that requirement with posting on state websites (the General Assembly and Department of Elections sites) to preserve public access while producing cost savings. He said publishing three amendments in one year cost roughly $5,500 and that over five general assemblies notices have totaled more than $25,600.

Senator Brian Townsend acknowledged his respect for newspapers and journalists, but argued that online posting and proactive outreach — press conferences, press releases and editorial coverage — can provide greater and more timely public awareness than a small back-page legal notice. "I respect journalism. I respect journalists tremendously," he said, and added that there are many ways to promote transparency beyond a tiny ad.

Senator Pettyjohn, representing a rural area, urged caution and said many constituents lack internet access and rely on printed notices in newspapers. He told the committee, "Not everybody is on the Internet... I have residents that are elderly and they get their newspaper... that's how they like to get their news." He insisted printed records remain important for access and urged broader discussion with press partners and possibly retaining some form of printed notice for accessibility.

Members discussed alternatives, including a committee study of how media have covered prior constitutional amendments to inform future policy. Staff reported no public commenters on the bill; committee members circulated the measure for further consideration and adjourned the meeting without taking a vote.