WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HCR 56

Tom Bill Dudley Memorial Bridge

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Jeff Campbell and 2 co-sponsors

HCR 56 includes two conflicting resolutions: recognizing Direct Support Professionals and requesting a stalking-penalties study; overall status is unclear/withdrawn.

Completed legislative action
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HCR 56

Summary — HCR 56

Bill Number: HCR 56
Classification: Concurrent Resolution
Introduced: January 30, 2025
Status: Withdrawn from the files of the House (document shows conflicting actions — see “Notes” below)
Primary Sponsors: Rep. Kendra Johnson; Rep. Daryl Deshotel (both listed)
Related: HR 52 (companion)

Note up front: the materials provided contain multiple, inconsistent texts and procedural histories that do not align with the single bill title given (“UTILITIES: Memorializes the United States Congress to release funds from the BEAD program”). The document body actually contains two different concurrent-resolution texts (one recognizing Direct Support Professionals and one requesting a judiciary study on stalking penalties), and the legislative actions list contains numerous, contradictory events (passage, signature, then later “withdrawn from the files”). Because of these conflicts, the summary below treats the two distinct resolution texts separately and notes procedural ambiguities.

1) Resolution recognizing Direct Support Professionals (DSPs)

Purpose / Intent

  • Acknowledges the role of Direct Support Professionals (DSPs) who serve people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and other life challenges.
  • Expresses gratitude and raises awareness for DSPs’ skills, training, and need for better compensation.
  • Designates May 20, 2025 as “Direct Support Professional” Advocacy Day.

Key provisions

  • Official recognition of DSPs’ importance and the need for improved pay/ workforce stabilization.
  • Names stakeholder organizations (e.g., Mosaic, Easterseals, KenCrest, A‑Team Delaware, Ability Network Delaware).
  • No appropriation or mandatory policy change — this is a formal recognition/resolution.

Who is affected

  • DSPs, nonprofit community service providers, individuals receiving services and their families, advocacy organizations.
  • No direct budgetary or regulatory changes; influence is symbolic and may support future budget/policy actions.

Procedural aspects

  • Resolution-style recognition; typically non-binding and declaratory.

2) Resolution requesting Judiciary study on elevating “harassment by stalking”

Purpose / Intent

  • Requests the Judiciary assess effects of increasing the offense of harassment by stalking from a misdemeanor to a Class C felony.
  • Rationale cited: stalking can be a serious, long-term offense and precursor to more severe violence.

Key provisions

  • Asks Judiciary to evaluate impacts, resource needs, victim safety, deterrence, and if appropriate recommend proposed legislation.
  • Requires submission of a report with findings and recommendations (including proposed legislation, if any) no later than 20 days prior to the convening of the 2026 Regular Session.
  • Directs a certified copy of the Concurrent Resolution to the Chief Justice.

Who is affected

  • Victims of stalking and domestic violence, alleged offenders, law enforcement, prosecutors, and the court system — primarily as a study of potential criminal-law changes.
  • As a study request, it does not itself change criminal penalties.

Procedural / timeline

  • Report due 20 days before the 2026 Regular Session (timeline specified).
  • Non-binding request; any change to criminal classification would require separate legislation.

Conflicting information and recommendation

  • Title referencing BEAD program funds (Utilities / federal BEAD) does not match any of the provided resolution texts.
  • Legislative actions show passage, gubernatorial signature, and a later “Withdrawn from the files of the House,” creating unresolved status inconsistencies.
  • Recommendation: Verify the official status and text(s) of HCR 56 with the relevant legislative information system (state legislature or clerk’s office) to determine which text is the authoritative HCR 56, whether the BEAD-related memorial exists under this number, and the final procedural outcome.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.