Court: Expanding Election Period and Mail Voting Violates Delaware Constitution

Delaware Court Rules Democrat-Backed​ Laws on Early and⁢ Permanent Absentee Voting Violate State Constitution

A ‌state court in Delaware has ruled ​that laws supporting early and permanent absentee voting, which⁣ were backed by Democrats, are unconstitutional. The ruling, delivered by Judge Mark Conner ⁢of the⁤ Superior ‌Court‍ of the State of Delaware, states that⁢ these laws do not⁢ align with the state’s founding document. The⁢ lawsuit ​challenging these statutes was ‍filed by ‍the​ Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) on behalf of Michael Mennella, an inspector‍ of elections for the Delaware Department of ‌Elections. The‍ defendants in the case are State‍ Election Commissioner Anthony Albence​ and the Delaware Department of Elections.

According ‍to Judge Conner,‍ “The enactments of⁢ the General Assembly challenged today​ are inconsistent with our Constitution and therefore cannot stand.”

In 2019,‍ the Democrat-controlled General Assembly ⁤passed‍ legislation allowing eligible voters to cast their ballots​ in person 10 days before Election Day. Additionally, in 2010, they passed​ a​ law granting individuals the ability to apply‌ for “permanent absentee status,” which allowed them to vote‌ by ​absentee ballot in ‌perpetuity, without considering their ⁤eligibility in each subsequent election.

Mennella initially filed his complaint against these ⁢statutes in​ February 2022. However, due to​ a separate lawsuit he filed challenging different Delaware ⁢election⁤ procedures, his ⁢case ⁢was not⁤ considered ‍by the judiciary until ‌almost a year⁣ later. In that separate case, the⁢ Delaware‌ Supreme Court ruled in October 2022 that the Democrats’ law⁣ permitting same-day voter registration and no-excuse mail-in voting violated the state’s⁣ constitution.

The defendants in Mennella’s challenge to Delaware’s early and permanent absentee voting laws attempted to have⁢ the case dismissed, arguing that the superior ⁣court​ lacked ​jurisdiction and that Mennella had waived his right to contest the statutes. However, Judge Conner disagreed with both arguments and denied the motion ⁤to‍ dismiss. ​He stated that the ‌failure⁣ to file a written transfer of elections did not strip the court ⁢of subject matter jurisdiction, and that a citizen’s right ‌to challenge ⁢an allegedly ⁤unconstitutional statute is not waived⁢ by the mere passage of time.

On the merits of the case, Judge Conner ruled that the plaintiffs had not only stated claims upon which relief can be granted, but they had also ⁣proven by clear and convincing evidence that the challenged statutes violate the Delaware Constitution. Specifically, ⁢he highlighted how the 10-day early ‌voting period circumvents the state’s constitution, and how the permanent absentee voting statute ⁣is inconsistent⁣ with the constitution’s⁣ requirements for ‌absentee​ voting.

PILF President‌ J. Christian Adams hailed the decision ⁤as a⁢ victory for the rule of ​law, stating, “States cannot pass election laws that conflict with their ⁣state constitution.”

Shawn Fleetwood ⁢is ​a ⁢staff writer for The Federalist ⁣and a ⁤graduate of​ the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a ⁤state‍ content writer for Convention⁤ of States Action⁣ and his work has been featured in numerous ‌outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth,‌ and⁢ Conservative ‌Review. ⁤Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

What is the significance of the court’s‌ ruling in favor of PILF and Mennella in relation to the principles established in ⁢the state⁢ constitution?

Regarding the ⁤state’s election ⁣laws, the case was put on hold until the resolution of ⁣that lawsuit. Once the previous lawsuit was concluded, PILF was able to proceed with ⁣Mennella’s case challenging the constitutionality of the early and permanent absentee voting laws.

PILF argued that these⁤ laws violate the Delaware Constitution, which clearly outlines the conditions under which an individual can vote in​ the state. The plaintiffs contended that the state⁤ legislature overstepped its authority by enacting laws that contradict the fundamental principles established‌ in the⁣ state constitution.

The court’s ruling in favor⁤ of PILF and Mennella affirms the principle that ⁤any ‌legislation must be in harmony with the state’s founding document. Judge Conner emphasized that the General Assembly exceeded‍ its⁣ constitutional authority by enacting ⁢laws that are ‌incompatible with the state constitution’s provisions on voting.

Early and permanent absentee voting laws have been a subject of contention in many states across the United States. Proponents argue that​ these laws enhance voter access and participation, while opponents raise concerns about potential ⁤fraud and the dilution of the voting process.

This ruling in Delaware adds to the ongoing national discussion surrounding voting rights and election laws. It‍ highlights‌ the importance of adhering strictly ​to the constitutional framework in state legislation, particularly⁤ when it comes to ​matters as crucial as elections.

The decision of the Delaware court will likely have implications beyond the state itself. It may serve as ⁤a precedent for other states grappling with similar issues surrounding early and permanent ⁤absentee voting laws. Furthermore,⁤ it underscores the significance of upholding constitutional⁤ principles and ensuring that any‌ legislation passed does not undermine the democratic foundation upon ​which a country is built.

It remains⁤ to be seen how ‍the Delaware legislature will respond to this ruling, and whether they will seek to modify⁤ the⁣ existing laws or propose alternative measures. Nevertheless, this court ruling undoubtedly establishes an important⁣ precedent in ⁢Delaware and beyond, serving ⁤as a reminder of the⁤ vital role played ‌by the judiciary in safeguarding the ‌integrity of the democratic process.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases