League of Women Voters of Delaware, Inc. v. State of Delaware Department of Elections, 250 A.3d 922

Background

Delaware enacted HB 346 (Vote‑by‑Mail Statute) for elections through Jan. 12, 2021, expanding mail‑in voting but keeping the existing absentee receipt deadline: ballots must be received by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day to be counted (15 Del. C. §§ 5508, 5608).
Plaintiffs (League of Women Voters of Delaware and a registered voter) challenged the receipt‑by‑Election‑Day deadline as facially and as‑applied unconstitutional under the Delaware Constitution (Art. I § 3 "free and equal" and Art. V § 2 right to vote), seeking court orders to count ballots postmarked by Election Day received up to 10 days after.
Plaintiffs alleged USPS operational changes and resulting delays (and Delaware’s lawsuit against USPS) created a realistic risk that timely‑mailed ballots would arrive late and be disenfranchised.
Several federal courts had entered nationwide injunctions limiting USPS operational changes and prioritizing election mail before this Court’s decision.
Procedural posture: Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment; no material facts were disputed; Vice Chancellor Glasscock denied plaintiffs’ motion and entered judgment for defendants on Oct. 9, 2020.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Facial challenge to Vote‑by‑Mail statute's Election‑Day receipt deadline	The Act expanded mail voting massively but retained an Election‑Day receipt deadline that will disproportionately burden mail voters and therefore is facially unconstitutional under Delaware's "free and equal" and voting‑rights provisions.	The deadline mirrored the preexisting absentee deadline (which plaintiffs conceded was constitutional); the Act expanded voting options but did not eliminate alternatives; the deadline is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulatory rule serving finality and logistical/state interests.	Denied. The statute is facially constitutional: burden on mail voting is not clearly severe and the deadline is a permissible regulatory choice.
As‑applied challenge based on USPS delays	Current USPS operational changes make timely delivery uncertain; enforcing the Election‑Day receipt rule risks widespread disenfranchisement of voters who timely mailed ballots.	Federal injunctions and remedies already curbed USPS practices causing delays; the record does not establish that delays will so persist or be so widespread as to render the deadline unconstitutional as applied.	Denied. On the existing record (including federal injunctive relief), plaintiffs failed to show the deadline will likely cause unconstitutional disenfranchisement in 2020; speculative or contingent harms do not justify judicially rewriting the deadline.
Ripeness / standing to bring pre‑election challenge	(Plaintiffs) The risk of disenfranchisement is immediate and concrete given USPS litigation and prior mail delays; pre‑election relief is appropriate.	(Defendants) Claims are speculative and not ripe; plaintiffs lack concrete individualized injury / standing.	Court found claims ripe (facial claim mooted standing/mootness concerns) and for purposes of decision assumed standing without deciding; nevertheless plaintiffs lost on the merits.

Key Cases Cited

Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (balancing test: severity of burden on voting determines scrutiny and justification required).
U.S. v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (standard for successful facial constitutional challenge).
Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682 (U.S. 2019) (incorporation principle and limits on state action under federal Bill of Rights).
Hoover v. State, 958 A.2d 816 (Del. 2008) (presumption of constitutionality for legislative enactments).
Young v. Red Clay Consol. Sch. Dist., 122 A.3d 784 (Del. Ch. 2015) (Delaware Elections Clause has independent, robust content).
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1992) (discussion of strict scrutiny for severe burdens on rights).
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (balancing framework for election‑law burdens).