The Delaware House passes a package of charter changes for the City of Rehoboth Beach, but an amendment to the measure sends it back to the Senate for another vote.
Most of the changes to the city’s charter were non-controversial ones, cleaning up language and removing antiquated provisions no longer in practice. But, a change to city code prohibiting people with close personal ties - like spouses or domestic partners - from serving on the same body has been a consistent flashpoint in recent commission meetings.
Testifying before the House Administration Committee earlier this month, Rehoboth Beach Commission alleged that the provision was directly targeted at her and her husband, and added the charter change doesn’t pass constitutional muster.
“The prohibition on spouses running for office was targeted at my husband and me because I do serve and my husband has political aspirations and is running for office,” she said.
Also testifying at that committee meeting was her husband, Jeffery Goode. He is running for an open commission seat while Suzanne Goode is a candidate for mayor.
“This ban disenfranchises both the individual, me in this case, who seeks office and the voters who have the right to choose their representatives,” he said. “It singles out married individuals for unequal treatment and imposes a restriction that exists nowhere else in American government. I've looked.”
Another Rehoboth resident, Thomas Gaynor, also opposed the measure.
“In the 250th year of our republic, it is particularly embarrassing that Rehoboth's commissioners are asking this legislature, of all of them, to violate the U.S. and the state constitution with such a vicious and discriminatory measure,” he said.
City Solicitor Lisa Boren Ogden pushed back on claims that the provision is unconstitutional.
“I appreciate the rhetoric, I do,” she told committee members. “But let's be honest, there is no constitutional right to run for office. This bill does not prohibit marriage, candidacy generally, political participation, or any civic involvement.”
State Rep. Claire Snyder-Hall, who is sponsoring the bill in the House, also defended the measure.
“In my view, it's legitimate for the city to put reasonable guardrails in their charter to protect against conflicts of interest,” she said. “It's a one square mile city, it's a small commission. There's always qualifications on who can run for election, and that's nothing out of the ordinary.”
However, after the meeting, Snyder-Hall seemed to change her mind. On June 23, she introduced an amendment to the package of charter changes, stripping out the controversial provision entirely. Speaking on her amendment on the House floor the next evening, she offered no explanation for her change of course.
Snyder-Hall’s amendment and the charter changes, minus the candidate qualification language, passed the House unanimously. It previously passed the Senate, but the amendment means the measure must return to the upper body for another vote.
Tuesday is the final day of the legislative session.
