Jacki Slonin for Delaware State Rep

10/12/2026

A woman shouldn’t have to make herself smaller to be heard. READ THAT AGAIN!

I’ve seen this pattern throughout my life, and I experienced it yet again when I ran for Delaware State Representative. If you do not think this happens in today's society you are sorely mistaken. If you find that you are engaging in such patterns, and you don't recognize it, I encourage you to get help immediately before you pass it along to your daughters.

I shared information, raised questions, and spoke about issues I believed mattered to our community. ALL of our community, not just Republicans.

Some people responded to the substance, THANK YOU. Others made it personal. Criticizing my appearance, character, or tone instead of addressing the facts, sources, or policy I had brought forward. This was NOT happening to just me. I am not alone on an island.

That experience is mine. I 💯 % experienced it in my past and to this day experience it.
I can’t claim to know what any individual person was thinking. Research does document a broader pattern worth discussing.

*In an experiment, Laurie Rudman and Peter Glick found that assertive women could face a “niceness” penalty when their behavior clashed with expectations that women should be agreeable. Victoria Brescoll and Eric Uhlmann found that both men and women evaluators assigned lower status to angry female professionals than to angry male professionals, and were more likely to explain women’s anger as a flaw in the woman herself.

*A 2026 study of more than three million social media mentions of U.S. state legislators found that visible women received similar overall levels of hostility as men, but nearly twice as much gender-specific abuse. That included comments about
👉 appearance and
👉 gender-based competence. The study examined online messages to state legislators, so it cannot tell us the motive behind every personal attack, but it does show why the kind of hostility matters, not just how much there is.

🚨 Sources:
• "Rudman & Glick, “Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash Toward Agentic Women”" (https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239)
• "Brescoll & Uhlmann, “Can an Angry Woman Get Ahead?”" (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02079.x)
• "“Clicks and Stones: Women Politicians and Gendered Hostility Online,” British Journal of Political Science" (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123426101458)

Men and women can both join in this behavior, and they do. Disagreement is fair. Criticism is fair. If I’m wrong, show me where, with evidence.
When a response focuses on my looks, labels me, or attacks my character instead of engaging with what I said, that is not a rebuttal. I have heard current elected officials make derogatory remarks about female candidates, no matter what political side they are on, that is more than problematic.

I ran for office because I believe people deserve HONEST discussion about the issues that affect them. I will keep speaking, keep bringing forward information, and keep asking questions.

Being outspoken does not make a woman’s argument less worthy of an answer.

10/11/2026

I’m speaking to the people in the back of the room, so clean out your ears, put in some eye drops, and use the reading-comprehension skills you learned in school.

Speaking up for what’s right and what’s wrong does not mean you have to agree with me. I was raised to think for myself, and through my own advocacy I learned something simple. Staying silent changes nothing.

Lies are lies. Truth is truth. Half-truths stripped of context and outright lies protect the person doing the lying. They also send a clear message. Keep doing it. There will be no accountability.

Some lessons should be learned early. Tell the truth, take responsibility, and understand that your actions have consequences. When an adult has disturbing past behavior, questionable present behavior, and keeps presenting disputed claims as fact, people are right to ask what is going on.

A few things need to be said plainly...

Facts don’t care about your feelings. If your feelings make you reject facts, that is something to examine within yourself.

Not everything in life is political. I know that may be hard for some people to believe, but there are still people like me who have values, morals, and standards. One day, I hope we bring those things back into politics.

The people in our communities must be able to trust the people we elect to make decisions for us and with us. That matters more than party loyalty, excuses, or protecting someone from scrutiny.

I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. But when something is in black and white, and you still need a magnifying glass to see it clearly, yet you keep defending a lie, the question becomes, what else is going on?

I’ve learned a lot in 51 years. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Fact checking helps determine if it's actually a duck.

Let me be perfectly clear...
My time is not done. I’m just getting started.

10/09/2026

TRUTH. TRANSPARENCY. ACCOUNTABILITY.

There’s been a lot of talk about why one candidate backed out of the League of Women Voters of Sussex County, Delaware 's October 15 forum. The explanation being repeated is, “The League changed the rules.”

Let’s look at what actually changed, and what didn’t.

Back in June, one candidate asked the League to hold the forum without an online question submission link. He was entitled to make that request. The League considered it and agreed to that stipulation. Unbeknownst to the other candidate Ryan Stuckey for State Representative he may have not been aware this condition was put into place. He most certainly wasn't aware that this was the only District Forum planned that was not going to have online question submissions.

Ryan Stuckey, contacted the League. In my conversation with him, he said he wanted the forum to move forward regardless. He later confirmed that in writing to the League.

The League then asked both candidates to reconfirm their participation by October 1(see email below). It also said it would be transparent with voters about why there would be no online question submissions (again keeping the original stipulation made from one candidate). This was not a change in fact it states the stipulation from the candidate requesting it will stay. How about that for transparency?
👇
That was the League explaining the existing arrangement, not changing the forum rules.

Here is the context being left out from the "THEY CHANGED THE RULES" nonsense.
👇
Then came ANOTHER stipulation from the same candidate who wanted NO online questions.
The explanation had to be changed or removed. In other words, the League was being asked not to tell voters why the online question link would be absent or he would not attend the forum. (Literally in black and white see below)

Ryan reconfirmed that he would participate immediately via email, according to Ryan Stuckey. The October 1 deadline passed without reconfirmation from the other candidate. Nearly a week later, he declined the forum.
👇
Before then, a radio announcement had already been made about a separate town hall scheduled for the same evening in the same town. 🧐

So when people say, “The League changed the rules,” they’re leaving out important details. There was one change made to accommodate ONE candidate that never changed. Do all of these supporters not know that the Republican candidate DID in fact make a SECOND stipulation because he clearly did. Do they not know when this same candidate states the League is not being truthful that was in fact that is what they were trying to do. Your Republican candidate didn't want to the truth told to the voters. (Again in black and white see below)

The screenshots tell the timeline. The original no-online-questions stipulation, the League’s request for both candidates to reconfirm, the proposed explanation to voters, and the later demand to change or remove that explanation.

Voters can decide for themselves what that says about transparency. I see exactly what it says. But please don’t call the League’s decision to explain the facts a “rule change.” The question isn’t whether the League changed the rules. It’s why a candidate objected to voters being told the truth about them.

Support who you want but know you may actually be supporting and spreading lies and half-truths. People who do no wrong have nothing to hide. Part of being a moral human means owning what you say and do. Another part is not to lie in the first place.

10/07/2026

The League of Women Voters of Sussex County, Delaware has decided to cancel the October forum for the 41st District due to Atkins backing out.

It is unfortunate that people will not be able to ask questions to both candidates but I am sure Ryan Stuckey is definitely open to answering any questions any Democrat, Independent or Republican has.

10/05/2026

📢 Millsboro Police Department wants to hear from you!

The Millsboro Police Department wants to hear from the community they serve.

They will soon begin developing their Goals and Objectives for 2027, and your input is an important part of that process. They want to make sure their priorities reflect the needs, concerns, and expectations of the community.

Take a few minutes to complete the survey and let them know what you believe should be a priority for the Millsboro Police Department in 2027.

Your feedback matters, and they appreciate your continued partnership and support.

Help them shape their priorities for 2027. Take the survey below!

The Millsboro Police Department is seeking feedback from residents, business owners, and visitors regarding their experiences and perceptions of our agency. This survey is anonymous and will help us improve services and better serve our community. The survey takes approximately 3–5 minutes to comp...

10/05/2026

Something has become much more obvious to me since running for office.

I saw political hypocrisy before. But once I became a candidate and started watching the process from the inside, it felt. I think we need to talk about it.

We complain constantly about how divided this country has become. Republican vs. Democrat. Conservative vs. liberal. Us vs. them.

How much of that division are WE helping to keep alive by applying completely different standards depending on which letter happens to be beside someone's name?

Here's a simple example:
"They're not from here."

I've watched that argument used against a candidate from one party as a reason people shouldn't support them. Okay.

Then some of those same people enthusiastically support a candidate in another race who...isn't from here either.

So is being "from here" actually the standard? Or is it only a convenient argument when it helps defeat the candidate you don't want?

It goes much deeper than that.

A Democrat breaks a rule, behaves unethically, misrepresents something or gets caught in a lie?
People on the Republican side can become VERY vocal.
They should ask questions!

When a Republican does something similar? Suddenly it's quiet. Or worse, instead of addressing the behavior, people attack the person who brings it into the open. You know that lovely "go to" you're defending the other side.

Democrats can absolutely do the exact same thing when the roles are reversed.

That's the part we don't seem willing to confront. If something is wrong when THEY do it, it has to be wrong when WE do it.
Otherwise, it's not a principle. It's partisanship.

We've talked before about the psychology behind this. People naturally defend the groups they identify with. We notice the faults of the "other side" more easily. We rationalize behavior from people we consider part of "our side." And once our identity becomes wrapped up in a political team, criticism of a candidate can start feeling like criticism of us personally.

Understanding WHY people do it doesn't mean we should accept it.
Especially when the hypocrisy is sitting right in front of us.

If character matters, it matters regardless of party.
If honesty matters, it matters regardless of party.
If ethics matter, they matter regardless of party.
If following the rules matters, it matters regardless of party.
If someone's background matters, then apply that standard consistently too.
If being "from here" is truly an important qualification to you, then it shouldn't suddenly stop being important because you like the other candidate better.

You are absolutely allowed to prefer one candidate over another. You're allowed to be a Republican, Democrat, Independent or none of the above. Maybe we should start asking ourselves a harder question...

Would I still defend this behavior if the person doing it belonged to the other party? If the answer is no, that should tell us something.

Maybe the biggest contributor to political division isn't simply that we disagree. Maybe it's that we've become incredibly good at identifying hypocrisy across the aisle while becoming incredibly skilled at excusing it on our own side.

We don't have to agree on policy.
We don't have to vote for the same people.
We CAN have the same basic standards for everyone.

Accountability shouldn't have a party affiliation.
Integrity shouldn't have a party affiliation.
Truth shouldn't have a party affiliation.

Until we're willing to hold OUR OWN SIDE to the same standards we demand from the other side, we're not fixing political division.

We're feeding it.

10/04/2026

What my younger self didn’t know…

She didn’t know that one day, being of service would mean more to her than being successful.

When I was younger, I thought about life the way most of us do, building a career, making a living, finding happiness, creating a life I could be proud of.

What I didn’t understand yet was how much purpose I would eventually find in serving something bigger than myself.

My community.
My state.
My country.
My people.

I didn’t know how deeply I would care about what happens to the people around me, even people I’ve never met.

I didn’t know I would become the person who asks the uncomfortable questions, speaks up when something doesn’t seem right, digs for answers, challenges the status quo, and refuses to believe that “that’s just the way it is” is good enough.

I didn’t know that some of the hardest things I would experience in life would eventually shape the way I see other people, their struggles, their fears, their need to be heard, and sometimes their need for someone else to stand beside them. I certainly didn’t know I would ever put my name on a ballot.

Somewhere along the way, life stopped being only about what I wanted to accomplish for myself.
It became about what I could contribute while I’m here.

My younger self probably wouldn’t recognize every part of the woman I am today. I know she would understand her.

Underneath all the years, lessons, mistakes, heartbreak, growth and change, there was always something in her that cared deeply about people. She just didn’t know yet what she was going to do with it.

My older self does.

Be of service. To my community. To my country. To my people.

However that service may look, and wherever it may lead me.
There are a lot of chapters left to write. ❤️

To anyone reading this who hasn't found your place, your purpose, or your calling yet, don't convince yourself that you don't have one.
Maybe you just haven't discovered it yet.

You don't have to run for office. You don't need a title. You don't need permission. Service can look like a thousand different things.

Show up. Volunteer. Speak up. Help a neighbor. Join a board. Mentor someone. Advocate for something you believe in. Ask questions. Get involved. Your community needs you.

Maybe someday you'll look back, just like I am now, and realize that the person you were becoming was there all along.

You just hadn't met them yet. ❤️

10/02/2026

❤️ To my husband, Nick Slonin .
On the day I married you, my vows said:

“As we all know, life is a series of choices and paths.
In my life I have made some funny choices and maybe some not-so-funny choices.
Some choices have taken me down some paths I needed to go, and some I did not want to go.
But as I stand here today, I have chosen to go down a path with the best choice I ever made.
You will forever be my choice I put first as my husband.”

I knew exactly what those words meant when I said them to you.
They weren't just pretty words written for a wedding day. They were intentional. I knew the life I had lived, the paths I had traveled, and exactly what it meant for me to stand there and choose you.
I meant every single word.

Since that day, we've lived a whole lot of life together.
We've laughed until we've cried. We've had incredible memories and difficult days. We've celebrated, struggled, changed, grown, disagreed, figured things out, and probably aggravated the hell out of each other more times than either of us could count. 😂
We've experienced the expected and the unexpected. We've seen each other at our best and at our worst. And through all of it, we've continued walking this path together.

That's what makes those vows even more special to me today.
The words haven't changed.
If anything, they've been proven.
Marriage isn't just about choosing someone once while standing in a wedding dress surrounded by the people you love.

It's waking up throughout all the years that follow and continuing to make that choice. And I do.

I chose you then.
I choose you now.
And I would choose you all over again.
Of everything I said to you that day, there's one line that still says it all:
“You will forever be my choice.” ❤️
Happy Anniversary, 🍯 aka Nick.
10/3/15 #11

10/02/2026

We talk about growth in Sussex County constantly.

We talk about houses. Traffic. Roads. Schools. Sewer. Infrastructure. There is another part of growth that deserves a much bigger conversation.

What is it doing to our seniors and our healthcare system?

Sussex County now has an estimated population of more than 277,000 people, an increase of 16.8% from the 2020 population base.

Here is the number that should get everyone's attention 🚨

32.8% of Sussex County residents are 65 or older. That's nearly ONE OUT OF EVERY THREE PEOPLE.

So when we approve and accommodate continued growth, healthcare infrastructure cannot be an afterthought.

Hospital beds matter.
Doctors matter.
Nurses matter.
Home healthcare matters.
Rehabilitation and skilled nursing capacity matters.

But simply counting the number of licensed beds doesn't tell the whole story.The real question is...

When your 75-, 80- or 90-year-old parent is discharged from the hospital and needs rehabilitation, is an appropriate staffed bed actually available—and will their insurance authorize and pay for it?

That is where families and healthcare workers can run headfirst into a system filled with rules, authorizations and restrictions.

We NEED to talk about Medicare, because seniors have paid into this system their entire working lives.

Under Original Medicare, coverage for skilled nursing facility care generally requires a patient to first have a qualifying three-consecutive-day INPATIENT hospital stay. The day of discharge doesn't count.

👉 Being physically inside a hospital does not necessarily mean Medicare considers you an inpatient. Time spent under observation status generally doesn't count toward that three-day requirement.

Think about how backwards that can feel to a family. I know first hand literally RIGHT NOW.

A physician may determine that Mom or Dad isn't safe to go home and needs skilled rehabilitation (30 DAY STAY -Acute stay typically 10 days or less) is but before Medicare will cover that next level of care, the patient may have to satisfy a hospital-stay requirement.

Then there is Medicare Advantage.

Those plans can operate differently and may waive the three-day requirement, but they can also involve networks, coverage determinations and prior authorization requirements that physicians, nurses, case managers, patients and families have to navigate.

This isn't just frustrating paperwork. For an elderly person who has suffered a stroke, serious illness, fall, surgery or significant loss of mobility, every day matters.

While Delaware's official projections do not currently show Sussex County simply "running out" of licensed nursing-home beds, that doesn't answer the question families actually care about. It does not negate the fact that beds are REGULARLY not available when needed.

Is the RIGHT bed available, staffed, close enough to home, capable of providing the care the patient needs AND approved by their insurance when they need it?
Those are very different things.

This is what I mean when I talk about the status quo.

We cannot continue talking about growth strictly in terms of how many homes can be built or how much land can be developed.
People require infrastructure too.

If nearly one-third of our county is already 65 or older—and our overall population continues growing—then planning for healthcare, rehabilitation, skilled nursing, home health services and the healthcare workforce needs to happen BEFORE the system reaches a breaking point, not after.

Growth without preparation has consequences. As we can all clearly see on any drive in Sussex County. Sometimes those consequences aren't sitting in traffic.

Sometimes they're sitting beside a hospital bed trying to figure out where Mom or Dad can go next.

Our seniors deserve better than a maze of regulations and confusion.

Our healthcare professionals deserve better than spending valuable time fighting through unnecessary administrative hurdles.

Sussex County deserves a serious conversation about whether our healthcare infrastructure is keeping pace with the population we're bringing here.

That is what proactive planning looks like.

09/30/2026

OK Deep breath for this one... If you do not have a subscription, you probably will not be able to read this article. However, what I can share with you is the basics of it and how we got here.

This certainly deserves some questions.

The Delaware News Journal is reporting today that former Sussex Central High School Principal Bradley Layfield has taken a position with Laurel High School, according to 👉 confirmation from the Laurel School District.

For anyone who doesn't remember why that name is familiar, here's some important context.

Layfield was placed on administrative leave in 2023 following the controversy involving surveillance video in which a female student's breast was exposed.

During Layfield's 2024 termination hearing, the Indian River School District's attorney argued that Layfield 👉 repeatedly showed portions of that surveillance video for 👉 non-school purposes and amusement. Witness testimony was conflicting, Layfield's side maintained the video was used for legitimate school safety and identification purposes, while district witnesses testified it was shown for entertainment.

This distinction matters...
The civil lawsuit being dismissed against the school and district was NOT the same thing as a determination that none of the underlying conduct occurred.

After the termination proceedings, the Indian River School Board ultimately voted to terminate Layfield in March 2024.

Now, according to today's reporting, he has taken a position at Laurel High School.

So I have questions—and I think parents and taxpayers have every right to ask them.

Why was he selected to hire?
What level of contact will he have with students?
Was Laurel School District aware of the complete record surrounding his termination from Indian River?
Did Laurel review the testimony and findings from the termination proceedings, not simply whether a lawsuit had been dismissed?
What policies and procedures were followed during the hiring process?
What explanation is Laurel prepared to give parents about why it determined this hire was appropriate?

This isn't about gossip. It isn't about a Facebook rumor. And it isn't about pretending allegations are proven facts.

It's about transparency, accountability and the standards we expect from the adults entrusted with our children.

I've said repeatedly that protecting children and other vulnerable members of our community shouldn't depend on who someone knows, what position they previously held, or which school district is involved.

Parents deserve answers. Asking questions about a documented public employment history isn't an attack. It's accountability.

A prior principal named in a 2023 lawsuit is now hired with Laurel School District. See link below ⬇️

📸 JASON MINTO/DELAWARE NEWS JOURNAL