House Republicans Largely Opposed Laws that Intruded on the Jurisdictions of Municipal and County Governments
A review of the 153rd General Assembly, which ends in a little over two weeks, reveals at least five instances in which state lawmakers stripped authority from county councils, municipal governments, and even local libraries—often transferring decision-making authority to officials the people affected by those choices could not hold accountable.
Here is a list of those actions:
House Democrats Override Governor’s Veto of Marijuana Bill
Senate Bill 75, as amended, largely ties county officials’ hands on where marijuana businesses can set up shop and what hours and days they can be open.
The bill passed the House and Senate last year without Republican support. A handful of Democratic lawmakers also opposed its passage.
House Republicans objected to the state interfering with local authority. Governor Matt Meyer appeared to agree, vetoing the measure in August 2025. In his veto message to the General Assembly, Gov. Meyer, a former county executive, raised concerns that the bill broadly preempted local decision-making on where and how cannabis retail locations and growing operations can operate.
Senate Democrats overrode the veto on January 28, 2026, 14-6, exceeding the required 60% supermajority. More than five months later, House Democrats followed suit, voting 25-16 to override the veto with only about two hours left in the legislative session.
Two Democrats joined all 14 members of the House Republican Caucus in opposition. With the successful override, SB 75 (as amended) was enacted into law.
Senate Bill 159: Overriding Sussex County Council Decision Linked to Offshore Wind Project
This legislation was a response to Sussex County Council’s decision to deny a permit for an electric substation tied to a proposed offshore wind project.
The substation would have linked turbines off Delaware’s coast to the regional power grid, but the electricity would go to Maryland, not Delaware. The permit denial was based, in part, on the proposed project’s lack of benefit to county residents.
Rather than respecting local residents’ expressed will, the state enacted SB 159, which retroactively overturned the Sussex decision and stripped all Delaware counties of their ability to reject similar projects.
In a column defending her sponsorship of the bill, Rep. Claire Snyder-Hall (D-Rehoboth Beach) doubled down on the need for the state to usurp authority and override local determination, noting that “Southern communities claimed ‘local control’ in defense of Jim Crow segregation.”
The House voted 25-15 to pass the bill, with one Democrat joining all 14 members of the House Republican Caucus in opposition.
House Bill 119: Undermining Local Control of Libraries
Signed into law a little more than a year ago, supporters of this statute claim it clarifies the book review process. However, critics say the measure shifts decision-making power away from local public and school libraries and into the hands of a few individuals at the state level.
Under the law, the state librarian, an appointed position, has final authority over appeals on public library material. For school libraries, decisions now ultimately rest with a seven-member School Library Review Committee, composed of representatives of groups with no accountability to the communities affected by their actions.
The new law replaces previous community-based review protocols for public and school libraries.
The measure passed the House 27 to 10, with all 10 votes in opposition from House Republicans. One House Republican was absent.
HB 430: Proposed Constitutional Amendment Barring Non-Resident Business Owners from Voting in Municipal Elections
About a dozen Delaware municipalities allow non-resident property owners, including business operators and trusts, to vote in town and city elections.
In many cases, these practices have been in place for decades. All were previously approved by the General Assembly.
In late 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the Town of Fenwick Island, which is one of the municipalities allowing such voting. The group argued that this infringed on the “one person, one vote” principle and violated the state constitutional mandate for “free and equal” elections.
The town’s attorneys countered that each qualified voter—human or entity—may cast only one vote. They also noted that because property owners pay taxes and are subject to the town’s ordinances, they had a right to participate in the electoral process.
The Delaware Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling for Fenwick Island. Just days before the decision was handed down, House Bill 430 was filed. House Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the measure, arguing that it trampled local control, imposed a solution to a problem not shown to exist, and would subject many local businesses and homeowners to taxation without representation.
The amendment cleared the House with the minimum 28 votes. Twelve House Republicans voted against the measure, with one absent. As a constitutional amendment, the legislation must be approved a second time by the upcoming 154th General Assembly to be adopted.
Senate Substitute 2 for Senate Bill 23: Housing Mandates
This law seeks to increase affordable housing availability in Delaware by increasing the overall supply of residences and mandating actions by county and municipal governments.
“The Housing for Every Delawarean Act” generally requires the counties and municipalities with populations over 2,000 to make significant changes to their comprehensive plans and zoning, increase allowable housing density, and create a plan to increase affordable housing in their jurisdictions.
The law also eliminates local governments’ discretion to reject a residential development if the project complies with zoning. This was illustrated in a recent Kent County case, where the planning commission rejected a proposal over traffic-safety concerns. However, Kent County Levy Court was compelled to approve the project on appeal, noting that the proposal complied with the property’s zoning requirements.
Nine House Republicans voted against the bill, and one caucus member abstained due to a potential conflict.
