250 A.3d 911
Del. Ch.2020Background
- Plaintiffs: Republican State Committee of Delaware and two registered voters; Defendants: Delaware Department of Elections and State Election Commissioner Albence.
- In response to COVID-19, the General Assembly enacted HB 346 (signed July 1, 2020), a temporary 2020-only Vote-by-Mail Statute allowing any registered elector to vote by mail; the DOE mailed ballot applications under the Act.
- The legislature's findings cited CDC guidance, the Governor’s emergency proclamation, the contagiousness of COVID-19, risks to older/medically vulnerable voters and poll workers, and concluded that mail voting was necessary to ensure continuity of government and that conforming to Article V, §4A would be impracticable.
- Plaintiffs sued for declaratory relief and a permanent injunction, arguing the Act exceeds Article V, §4A (which lists exhaustive absentee reasons) and cannot be justified by Article XVII, §1 emergency powers.
- The Court assumed standing and timeliness for decision, resolved the merits on cross-motions (summary judgment posture), and denied plaintiffs’ motion, upholding the statute as authorized by Article XVII, §1; permanent injunction denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HB 346 violates Article V, §4A (absentee list is exhaustive) | HB 346 impermissibly expands absentee voting beyond the constitutionally exhaustive list (health emergency not listed) | Acknowledges §4A is exhaustive but invokes Article XVII, §1 emergency power to permit broader mail voting | Court: Act does not fit §4A but that alone does not invalidate it when Article XVII, §1 is properly invoked |
| Whether Article XVII, §1 authorizes the Act (necessary and proper; practicability) | Universal mail voting not "necessary and proper"; in-person polling remains available so conformity with §4A is practicable | Legislature found mail voting necessary to protect voters/poll workers and impracticable to rely solely on §4A during the pandemic | Court: Deferential review; legislative findings are rational and not clearly erroneous; Article XVII, §1 authorizes the Act |
| Standing and laches | Plaintiffs claim organizational and individual injuries and timely suit | Defendants contend plaintiffs lack injury-in-fact and delayed (laches) | Court: Did not resolve—assumed standing and no laches for purposes of ruling and proceeded to merits |
| Permanent injunctive relief | Injunction needed to prevent constitutional violation and alleged disenfranchisement or ballot spoilage | Statute presumed constitutional; plaintiffs not entitled to injunctive relief on the record | Court: Denied permanent injunction; plaintiffs failed on the merits; defendants entitled to judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Opinion of the Justices, 295 A.2d 718 (Del. 1972) (broad construction of Article XVII emergency powers)
- Hoover v. State, 958 A.2d 816 (Del. 2008) (legislative enactments enjoy presumption of constitutionality)
- Monceaux v. State, 51 A.3d 474 (Del. 2012) (clear-and-convincing evidence required to overcome presumption)
- Helman v. State, 784 A.2d 1058 (Del. 2001) (judiciary should give effect to General Assembly enactments absent clear invalidity)
- Branson Sch. Dist. RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619 (10th Cir. 1998) (constitutional and statutory interpretation are questions of law)