320 A.3d 212
Del.2024Background
- Plaintiffs, a citizen (Mennella) seeking to serve as an inspector of elections and a Delaware State Senator (Hocker) not running in the current election, challenged the constitutionality of Delaware's permanent absentee ballot statute and early-voting statutes.
- The statutes at issue allow certain voters to request permanent absentee status and authorize early in-person voting for at least 10 days before an election.
- Plaintiffs argued these statutes conflict with Delaware's Constitution, which they interpret as restricting in-person voting and absentee eligibility more narrowly.
- The Superior Court found that Senator Hocker had standing as a candidate and held the statutes unconstitutional.
- The State appealed, arguing plaintiffs lacked standing, and the Supreme Court reviewed the standing issues de novo, ultimately not reaching the merits of the underlying constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Senator Hocker | Hocker is an incumbent Senator intending to run in the future; faces risk of defeat by illegal votes | Hocker is not a current candidate; any harm is not imminent | No standing; harm not imminent or concrete |
| Standing of Mennella (Inspector) | Mennella will serve as inspector; duties are compromised by alleged unconstitutionality of statutes | Mennella's role is hypothetical, scope narrow; no concrete harm | No standing; injury too speculative and not particularized |
| Standing as Voters (Vote Dilution) | Votes diluted by illegal ballots under challenged statutes | Alleged harm is a generalized grievance, not particularized | No standing; injury generalized, not particularized |
| Constitutionality of Statutes | Statutes conflict with explicit constitutional provisions on time/method of voting | Statutes within legislative authority; not unconstitutional | Not reached; dismissed on standing grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (established standing for vote dilution claims in malapportionment context)
- Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) (standing unavailable for generalized grievances about elections law compliance)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury that is actual or imminent)
- Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. 48 (2018) (standing for vote dilution requires individualized, not generalized, harm)
- United States v. Students Challenging Reg. Agency Procs., 412 U.S. 669 (1973) (standing purposes and generalized grievances)