A Resolution Advancing Civility And Strengthening Discourse In The Delaware General Assembly.
Summary
SCR 124 is a concurrent resolution expressing the Delaware General Assembly’s commitment to civility in legislative and public discourse. It states that hostile, personal, or unproductive political rhetoric weakens trust in democratic institutions, and it frames respectful disagreement, honesty, and integrity as essential to effective self-government. The resolution is aspirational rather than regulatory: it does not create new legal duties or change substantive law, but instead sets a public standard for how legislators should conduct themselves.
The resolution calls on members of the General Assembly to model respectful debate in chambers, committee meetings, public forums, and online; to support bipartisan gatherings and dialogue; to encourage civil engagement from constituents; to mentor new legislators; to speak out against incivility and threats of violence; and to work across party lines on legislation and initiatives that promote collaboration and unity. Its stated purpose is to strengthen discourse in Delaware government and encourage a political culture centered on productive disagreement and mutual respect.
Impact
SCR 124 has no direct effect on Delaware statutes, regulations, or appropriations. As a concurrent resolution, it functions as a formal statement of legislative values and expectations rather than enforceable law. Its practical impact is symbolic and institutional: it seeks to influence the conduct of legislators, staff, and public participants in the political process, and to reinforce norms around respectful communication, bipartisan cooperation, and opposition to political violence.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and voting history is strongly positive and noncontroversial. The resolution is framed in broadly shared terms—civility, respect, public safety, and bipartisan cooperation—and the recorded vote shows unanimous Senate approval on third reading, with no recorded opposition. That suggests the measure was viewed as a consensus statement of legislative conduct rather than a partisan policy proposal.
Contention
There is little visible contention in the available record. Because the resolution is largely declaratory, it does not appear to have generated debate over legal mandates, funding, or enforcement. Any potential point of disagreement would likely be philosophical rather than procedural: whether a civility resolution meaningfully changes behavior or merely restates ideals. The text itself anticipates concerns about hostile rhetoric, campaign politics, and political violence, but the voting record indicates no substantive opposition.