Delaware 153rd General Assembly (2025-2026) Status: Enacted 6 D cosponsors

SB 115 — AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 25 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO SUMMARY POSSESSION.

Last action — Signed by Governor

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed House
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced June 11, 2025. Enacted.

Signed by Governor Matt Meyer (Democratic) on July 29, 2025.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 82% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 7 sponsors

    7 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (6 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 2 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

This Act provides a pathway for former defendants in eviction actions to have the eviction filings against them shielded from public view. Being the subject of an eviction filing can prevent an individual from securing housing for years after any judgment in the case has been satisfied. Even tenants who prevailed in eviction actions may be denied housing by landlords who turn away any applicant with a prior eviction filing, regardless of the outcome of the case. The well-known health, social, and economic consequences of eviction can thus linger for years after an eviction filing, and trap individuals – including many children and families – in a cycle of poverty and housing instability. The effects are particularly acute among already marginalized groups, such as Black and female renters. By shielding eviction records when an individual has met certain requirements, this Act will help break down barriers to stable housing and economic security. Under this Act, the Court must grant shielding upon a motion by the defendant if the Court finds any of the following to be true: 1. The judgment against the defendant was a judgment on the merits, a default judgment, or a stipulated judgment, 5 or more years have passed since the judgment was entered, the defendant has satisfied any monetary award included in the judgment, and the defendant has had no other similar judgments within 5 years of the defendant’s motion to shield. 2. The parties resolved the action through a stipulated agreement, and the defendant has complied with the terms of the stipulated agreement. 3. The plaintiff withdrew the complaint. 4. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. 5. The final judgment was in favor of the defendant. 6. The plaintiff and the defendant have agreed to the shielding. 7. The shielding of the records is clearly in the interests of justice. The Court may not charge a filing fee for a motion to shield. Once the Court has granted the shielding, the Court has 45 days to effectuate it. An individual whose eviction record has been shielded can answer questions about prior evictions as if the shielded action was never filed. This Act is a second Substitute for Senate Bill No. 115. Like Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 115, Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 115 does the following: 1. Adds judgement by stipulation to the list of judgments for which shielding is available after 5 years if the defendant has satisfied any monetary award included in the judgment. 2. Creates exceptions that make the shielded records available to the Department of Justice and the defendant in the action. 3. Allows for records of shielded actions to be available to the public for purposes of preserving case law, provided that all identifying information is redacted or otherwise obscured. 4. Makes minor technical changes. The primary differences between Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 115 and Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 115 are as follows: 1. Senate Substitute No. 2 replaces the term “expungement” with the term “shielding” to better reflect how the Court will be handling records. 2. Senate Substitute No. 2 eliminates the provision in Senate Substitute No. 1 that would have allowed certain eviction records to be automatically shielded. 3. Senate Substitute No. 2 adds a requirement that a defendant seeking shielding under paragraph (a)(1) of § 5720 (lines 6 through 9) have no other similar judgments against them within 5 years of the motion to shield. Senate Substitute No 2. also adds language specifying that redacted records are being made available for purposes of preserving important case law, and that the Court is responsible only for databases and systems that it controls.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Signed by Governor

  2. Passed By House. Votes: 27 YES 12 NO 1 ABSENT 1 VACANT

  3. Reported Out of Committee (Appropriations) in House with 4 On Its Merits

  4. Assigned to Appropriations Committee in House

  5. Reported Out of Committee (Housing) in House with 5 Favorable, 2 On Its Merits

  6. Assigned to Housing Committee in House

  7. Passed By Senate. Votes: 19 YES 2 ABSENT

  8. was introduced and adopted in lieu of SB 115

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

7 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 55 not signed on · 12 voted No

Sponsors (7)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (55)

55 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 55 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

SM

Passed 27 Yea · 12 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 26000
Republican 11201
Total 271201
% of votes cast 68%30%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Claire Snyder-Hall Democratic Yea
Cyndie Romer Democratic Yea
DeShanna U Neal Democratic Yea
Debra Heffernan Democratic Yea
Edward S. Osienski Democratic Yea
Eric Morrison Democratic Yea
Frank Burns Democratic Yea
Franklin D. Cooke Democratic Yea
Josue O Ortega Democratic Yea
Kamela T Smith Democratic Yea
Kendra Johnson Democratic Yea
Kerri Evelyn Harris Democratic Yea
Kimberly Williams Democratic Yea
Krista Griffith Democratic Yea
Larry Lambert Democratic Yea
Madinah Wilson-Anton Democratic Yea
Mara Gorman Democratic Yea
Melanie Ross Levin Democratic Yea
Melissa Minor-Brown Democratic Yea
Nnamdi O. Chukwuocha Democratic Yea
Sean M. Lynn Democratic Yea
Sherae'a Moore Democratic Yea
Sophie Phillips Democratic Yea
Stephanie T. Bolden Democratic Yea
William Bush Democratic Yea
William J. Carson Democratic Yea
Bryan W. Shupe Republican Nay
Charles S Postles Jr. Republican Nay
Daniel B. Short Republican Yea
Jeff Hilovsky Republican Nay
Jeffrey N. Spiegelman Republican Nay
Jesse R. Vanderwende Republican Nay
Kevin S Hensley Republican Nay
Lyndon D. Yearick Republican Nay
Michael F. Smith Republican Nay
Richard G. Collins Republican Nay
Ronald E. Gray Republican Nay
Shannon Morris Republican Nay
Timothy D. Dukes Republican Not Voting
Valerie Jones Giltner Republican Nay

Official roll call →

SM

Passed 19 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 14001
Republican 5001
Total 19002
% of votes cast 90%0%0%10%
How each member voted (21)
Member Party Vote
Bryan Townsend Democratic Yea
Daniel Cruce Democratic Yea
Darius J. Brown Democratic Yea
David P. Sokola Democratic Yea
John "Jack" Walsh Democratic Not Voting
Kyra L. Hoffner Democratic Yea
Laura V. Sturgeon Democratic Yea
Marie Pinkney Democratic Yea
Nicole Poore Democratic Yea
Ray Seigfried Democratic Yea
Russell Huxtable Democratic Yea
S. Elizabeth Lockman Democratic Yea
Spiros Mantzavinos Democratic Yea
Stephanie L. Hansen Democratic Yea
Trey Paradee Democratic Yea
Brian Pettyjohn Republican Yea
Bryant L. Richardson Republican Yea
Dave G. Lawson Republican Not Voting
David L. Wilson Republican Yea
Eric Buckson Republican Yea
Gerald W. Hocker Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

housing civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 115 do?
This Act provides a pathway for former defendants in eviction actions to have the eviction filings against them shielded from public view. Being the subject of an eviction filing can prevent an individual from securing housing for years after any judgment in the case has been satisfied. Even tenants who prevailed in eviction actions may be denied housing by landlords who turn away any applicant with a prior eviction filing, regardless of the outcome of the case. The well-known health, social, and economic consequences of eviction can thus linger for years after an eviction filing, and trap individuals – including many children and families – in a cycle of poverty and housing instability. The effects are particularly acute among already marginalized groups, such as Black and female renters. By shielding eviction records when an individual has met certain requirements, this Act will help break down barriers to stable housing and economic security. Under this Act, the Court must grant shielding upon a motion by the defendant if the Court finds any of the following to be true: 1. The judgment against the defendant was a judgment on the merits, a default judgment, or a stipulated judgment, 5 or more years have passed since the judgment was entered, the defendant has satisfied any monetary award included in the judgment, and the defendant has had no other similar judgments within 5 years of the defendant’s motion to shield. 2. The parties resolved the action through a stipulated agreement, and the defendant has complied with the terms of the stipulated agreement. 3. The plaintiff withdrew the complaint. 4. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. 5. The final judgment was in favor of the defendant. 6. The plaintiff and the defendant have agreed to the shielding. 7. The shielding of the records is clearly in the interests of justice. The Court may not charge a filing fee for a motion to shield. Once the Court has granted the shielding, the Court has 45 days to effectuate it. An individual whose eviction record has been shielded can answer questions about prior evictions as if the shielded action was never filed. This Act is a second Substitute for Senate Bill No. 115. Like Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 115, Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 115 does the following: 1. Adds judgement by stipulation to the list of judgments for which shielding is available after 5 years if the defendant has satisfied any monetary award included in the judgment. 2. Creates exceptions that make the shielded records available to the Department of Justice and the defendant in the action. 3. Allows for records of shielded actions to be available to the public for purposes of preserving case law, provided that all identifying information is redacted or otherwise obscured. 4. Makes minor technical changes. The primary differences between Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 115 and Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 115 are as follows: 1. Senate Substitute No. 2 replaces the term “expungement” with the term “shielding” to better reflect how the Court will be handling records. 2. Senate Substitute No. 2 eliminates the provision in Senate Substitute No. 1 that would have allowed certain eviction records to be automatically shielded. 3. Senate Substitute No. 2 adds a requirement that a defendant seeking shielding under paragraph (a)(1) of § 5720 (lines 6 through 9) have no other similar judgments against them within 5 years of the motion to shield. Senate Substitute No 2. also adds language specifying that redacted records are being made available for purposes of preserving important case law, and that the Court is responsible only for databases and systems that it controls.
Who sponsors SB 115?
SB 115 is sponsored by Josue O Ortega (Democratic), Spiros Mantzavinos (Democratic), Mara Gorman (Democratic), Marie Pinkney (Democratic), Ray Seigfried (Democratic), S. Elizabeth Lockman (Democratic), and Sarah McBride.
What is the current status of SB 115?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced June 11, 2025. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 115?
Track SB 115 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 115

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 115

Last checked for changes about 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →