AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 10 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO THE RANDOMIZED ASSIGNMENT OF CASES IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
Summary
HB232 would require the Delaware Court of Chancery to use a randomized system to assign all civil actions, petitions, and other matters to the Chancellor or a Vice Chancellor. The stated purpose is to promote impartiality and reduce the possibility of undue influence in judge selection. The bill also bars parties, attorneys, or judges from directing or influencing assignment to a particular judicial officer.
The bill allows reassignment only in limited circumstances, including recusal or disqualification, substantial relatedness to another case, or docket-efficiency/workload reasons that are not based on the identity of the parties or lawyers. It also requires the court to publish public rules governing the process and for the Clerk to issue an annual statistical report on assignments and reassignments. The act would take effect immediately, with implementation required within 90 days.
Impact
HB232 would amend Title 10 of the Delaware Code by adding a new section governing case assignment in the Court of Chancery. It would create a statutory requirement for randomized assignment of chancery matters, limit discretionary reassignment, and authorize sanctions for attempts to manipulate the assignment system. The bill would also require the Chancellor to adopt implementing rules and administrative orders, and it would impose a public reporting obligation on the Clerk of the Court.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote history, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill text, the measure is framed as a transparency and fairness reform, suggesting a generally pro-accountability rationale. Because no votes or hearing comments are included, overall sentiment cannot be reliably characterized beyond the bill’s stated emphasis on impartiality and public confidence.
Contention
The main policy tension in HB232 is between random assignment and the Court of Chancery’s traditional ability to manage its docket and related cases. Potential concerns would likely come from those who value judicial efficiency, case specialization, or the ability to keep related matters with the same judge, while supporters would emphasize preventing judge-shopping and undue influence. The bill tries to address these concerns by allowing limited reassignment for recusal, related cases, and workload reasons, but only if not tied to the parties or attorneys involved.