### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MICHAEL MENNELLA and THE HONORABLE GERALD W. HOCKER , )

) Plaintiffs , )

) v. ) C.A. No. S23C

- 03

- 014 MHC ) THE HONORABLE ANTHONY J. ALBENCE, in his official capacity as State E lection Commissioner, and STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS , ) )

) Defendants

. )



### OPINION AND ORDER Submitted: February 05 , 202 4 Decided: February 23 , 2024 Upon Defendants Motion to Dismiss ,



### DENIED. Upon Plaintiffs R equest for D eclaratory J udgment , 

### GRANTED. M. Jane Brady , Esquire, BRADY LEGAL GROUP , LLC, Lewes, Delaware , 19958, Noel H. Johnson, Esquire, Pro Hac Vice, Public Interest Legal Foundation, Alexand ria, Virginia, 22314, Attorney s for Plaintiffs.
Zi

- Xiang Shen , Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware , 19801, Attorney for Defendants. 

### CONNER, J.2 INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is the m otion of the Honorable Anthony J. Albence in his official capacity as State Election Commissioner and the State of Delaware Department of Elections ( collectively “Defendants”) to d ismiss Michael Men n ella and the Honorable Gerald W. Hocker’s ( collectively “ Plaintiffs”) Amended Complaint filed in this Court on June 16 , 2023. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint brings forth two claims. First, Plaintiffs allege
that 15 Del. C. § 5402 of the Delaware Code (Delaware’s “Early Voting Statute”) violates Article V

, Se ction 1 of the Delaware Constitution. Second, Plaintiffs allege that 15 Del. C. § 5503(k) of the Delaware Code (Delaware’s “Permanent Absentee
Vot ing Statute”) violates Article V , Section 4A of the Delaware Constitution.

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory ju dgment that both Delaware ’ s Early Voting Statute and Permanent Absentee Voting Statute violate the Delaware Constitution. They , additionally

, seek reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses, costs, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss has four (4) primary arguments. Defendants argue that : (1) Plaintiffs failed to properly transfer this case pursuant to 10 Del. C

. §
1 092 ; (2) Plaintiffs lack standing to bring these claims ; (3) Plaintiffs’ undue delay3

bars the claims from being heard, and finally that ; (4) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim that the challenged laws are unconstitutional

. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will DENY Defendants’ motion to d ismiss and GR

ANT Plaintiffs reques t for declaratory judgment

.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

O n February 24 , 202 2 , Michael Mennella filed a Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief in the Court of Chancery. The pendency of Albence v. Higgin , 1 a nother challenge to Delaware ’s election

- laws, suspended consideration of th at case for nearly a year. 2 On January 19 , 2023, t he Court of Chancery ultimately determined that equitable relief was not required to resolve th is case and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction

. 3 The Court of Chancery ’s Order (“Chancery Order”) dismissed th e case “in its entirety with leave to transfer subject
to 10 D el. C. § 1902.” 4
On January 30 , 202 3, Mennella filed an Application for Certification o f Interlocutory Appeal of the Chancery Order

. The a pplication was opposed by

1 295 A.2d 1065 (Del. 2022)

. 2 Mennella v. Albence , 2023 WL 309042, at *2 (Del. Ch. Jan. 19, 2023), appeal refused, 292 A.3d 111 (Del. 2023). 3 Id. 4 Id.4

Defendants, refused by the Court of Chancery, and on February 23 , 2023, ultimately refused by the Delaware Supreme Court. At this point it could be presumably said that Mennella had lost the procedural battle , but he had not yet lost the war

. On March 16 , 2023, Mennella filed the Chancery Order dismissing his action with leave to transfer subject to 10 Del. C. §
1092 in this Court

. On April 12 , 2023, this Court gran ted Mennella leave to amend his complaint, which he did

. Mennella filed the A mended C omplaint on June 16 , 2023 , add ing t he Honorable Gerald W. Hocker , a State Senator representing Delaware’s 20 th Senate District (“Senator Hocker”) , as a n additional p laintiff

. Predictably, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint and that is the motion currently before the Court

. Parties have filed written briefs on the issues and on January 29 , 2024,

o ral argument was held on the m atter.

ANALY SIS

I. Senator Hocker has standing as a candidate to pursue these claims
. “Standing is a threshold question that must be answered by a court affirmatively to ensure that the litigation before the tribunal is a ‘case or controversy’5

that is appropriate for th e exercise of the court's judicial powers.” 5 “ The issue of standing is concerned only with the question of who is entitled to mount a legal challenge and not with the merits of the subject matter of the controversy.” 6 “The party invoking the jurisdicti on of a court bears the burden of establishing the elements of standing.” 7
Higgin presented a similar constitutional challenge to Delaware ’s election

statutes

. In Higgin, t he Supreme Court of the State of Delaware found that Michael Higgin had standing to challenge the validity of two Delaware election statutes that he claimed violated the Delaware Constitution by virtue of his status as a candidate for public office

. 8 The C ourt explained , “it seems nearly self

- evident that a candidate who runs the risk of defeat because of the casting of ballots that are the product of

an extra

- constitutional statute has standing to challenge that statute.” 9 Senator Hocker has over 20 year s of l egislative s ervice in the Delaware General Assembly. 10 He served in the State House of Representatives from 2002 to 2012 and as the House Minority Whip from 2010 to 2012. 11 He was elected to

5 Dover Hist. Soc'y v. City of Dover Plan. Comm’n , 838 A.2d 1103, 111 0 (Del. 2003)

. 6 Albence v. Higgin , 295 A.3d 1065, 108 6 (Del. 2022) (citing Stuart Kingston , Inc . v. Robinson , 596 A.2d 1378, 1382 (Del. 1991 ) ). 7 Higgin , 295 A.3d 1065, 1 086 (citing Dover Hist. Soc'y , 838 A.2d 1103, 110 9 )

. 8 Higgin , 295 A.3d 1065, 1087

. 9 Id. 10 Gerald W. Hocker (R), Delaware General Assembly, available at https://legis.delaware.gov/AssemblyMember/152/Hocker (last visited February 22, 2024). 11 Id.6

represent the 20 th Senate D istrict in 2012 and became the S enate Minority Leader in 2018, a position he currently holds. 12 Moreover, i t is stated in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint that the incumbent Senator intends to run to maintain his Senate s eat in future elections. 13

I am satisfied that an incumbent State Senator who expressed his intention to seek reelection in a lawsuit, a matter of public record, is in fact a candidate. As such
I find Senator Hocker has established standing as a candidate under Higgin to bring these cl aims. Senator Hocker has standing with regards to both claims brought by Plaintiffs , therefore no further analysis with regards to Michael Me n nella is
necessary.

II. Plaintiffs Effectively Transferred this matter under 10 Del. C. § 190 2
.
Vice Chancellor Gla sscock’s January 19 , 2023, Order ( the aforementioned “Chancery Order”) dismissed Mennella’s complaint in the Court of Chancery “with leave to transfer subject to 10 Del. C. § 1902.” 14 Defendants argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear these claims because Mennella failed to properly transfer

12 Gerald W. Hocker (R), Delaware General Assembly, available at https://legis.delaware.gov/AssemblyMember/152/Hocker (last visited February 22, 2024). 13 P l s. Amended Compl. ⁋ 9. 14 Mennella , 2023 WL 309042 , at *2

.7

this matter from the Court of Chancery to the Superior Court pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1902.

Section 1902 “is a remedial statute designed to prevent a case from being totally ousted because it was brought in the wrong court.” 15 The statute provides that “[n] o civil action, suit or other proceeding brought in any court of this State shall be dismissed solely on the ground that such court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter, either in the original proceeding or on appeal. ” 16 Further, it commands that it “shall be liberally construed to permit and facilitate transfers of proceedings between the courts of this State in the interests o f justice.” 17

Section 1902 has three primary statutory requirements that must be satisfied by the transferring party “ within 60 days after the order denying jurisdiction of the first court has become final...

. ” 18 The transferring party must : ( 1) file a wri tten election of transfer ; ( 2) discharge all costs accrued in the first court ; and ( 3) make the usual deposit for costs in the second court. 19

It is uncontested that Mennella both discharged all costs accrued in the Court of Chancery and m ade the usual deposit in this Court. However, Defendant s argue

15 Wilmington Trust Co

. v. Schneider , 342 A.2d 240 , 242 (Del. 1975)

. 16 10 Del. C. § 1902

. 17 Id

. 18 Id

. 19 Id.8

that because Mennella failed to file a written election of transfer with the Court of Chancery their § 1902 transfer to this Co urt is improper

. As a result of that improper transfer Defendant s contend this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these claims and they must be dismissed with prejudice. This Court is satisfied that the interests of justice will be served by all owing
P laintiffs’ claim s to be heard on their merits

. In the letter opinion accompanying the Chancery Order, Vice Chancellor Glasscock wrote: Nothing in this Letter Opinion should be read to imply that the Plaintiff’s allegations are inconsequential. In fact, they challenge the enforceability of acts of the General Assembly as violative of the Delaware Constitution, in the single arena

– voting rights

–

most fundamental to a functioning democracy. These are important issues; they are also issues outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, this matter is dismissed with leave to transfer to the Superior Court. 20

The Vice Chancellor clearly understood the importance of this matter being decided on its’ merits before dismissing it for lack of jurisdic tion in the Court of Chancery

. The se issues strike deep at the heart of our system of constitutional self

governance and this Court does not take them lightly. Section 1902’s written election of transfer requirement exists to provide notice to the initial court of the pending transfer to ensure that court deliver s :

20 Mennella , 2023 WL 309042 , at *2

.9

A ll or part of the papers filed, or copies thereof, and a transcript of the entries, in the court where the proceeding was originally instituted... in accordance with the rules or special o rders of such court, by the prothonotary, clerk, or register of that court to the prothonotary, clerk or register of the court to which the proceeding is transferred. 21

The Court of Chancery was clearly aware of the transfer as evidenced by the case file being transferred to this Court. Both courts involved have recouped or been properly paid all costs owed by Mennella . Therefore, I find Mennella ’s failure to file this written election of transfer in the Court of Chancery to be untidy but harmless. In light of the statutory command for a liberal construction of § 1902, I find in this instance t he interests of justice favor hearing critical issues that implicate the
De laware Constitution and the voting rights of our citizenry on their merits

. Therefore, Plaintiffs admitted failure to file a written transfer of elections is insufficient to strip this Court of s ubject m atter j urisdiction over these claims.

III. Plaintiffs’ claims are not waived or time

- barred .
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have waived their claims because they declined to challenge Delaware ’ s Early Vot ing Statute (enacted in 2019) and Permanent Absentee Vot ing Statute (enacted in 2010) at the time they were enacted

.

21 10 Del. C. § 1902.10

Defendants further argue that even if waiver doesn’t bar P laintiffs’ claims , Delaware ’ s three

- year statute of limitations bars the claim against Delaware ’ s Permanent Absentee Voting Statute under 10 Del. C. § 8106

.
A. Plaintiffs’ cla ims have not been waived. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs waived their right to challenge these statutes because they “ fully acquiesced into these statutory schemes” and “sat on any purported rights.” 22 Defendants further claim that allowing this suit to proceed after such undue delay would prejudice both the Department of Elections and the thousands of voters who would be disenfranchised if these laws are struck down. Defendants’ position is essentially if unconstitutional la ws are not challenged at the time of their enactment, the right to challenge them is waived. This position on waiver ignores several landmark U nited States Supreme Court decisions overturning longstanding state statutes , constitutional provisions, and pol icies that unconstitutionally violated the fundamental rights of citizens. 23 One such decision has its roots in Delaware.

22 Tr. at 5

. 23 Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections , 383 U.S. 663 , 86 S. Ct. 1079, 16 L. Ed. 2d 169 (1966) ( Held Virginia’s long standing poll tax was unconstitutional ); Loving v. Virginia , 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967) (“

... held that miscegenation statutes adopted by Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on basis of racial classification violate equal protection and due process clauses of Fourtee nth Amendment.”); United States v. Virginia , 518 U.S. 515, 116 S. Ct. 2264, 135 L. Ed. 2d 735 (1996) (“ Virginia's categorical exclusion of women from the educational opportunities VMI provides denies equal protection to women. ”) ; Lawrence v. Texas ,11

Until 1952 Article X , Section 2 of the Delaware Constitution of 1897 and Paragraph 2631 , Section 9 of the Revised Code of Delaware of 1935 explicitly required the segregation of Delaware’s public schools. 24 In Gebhart v. Belton t he Delaware Supreme Court affirmed an Opinion of the Chancery Court finding those provisions unconstitutional under the 14 th Amendment of the Federal Constit ution

. 25
Th is suit was consolidated with several others from across the nation and ultimately affirmed in the milestone decision Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka, Shawnee Cnty.,
Kan

. 26 The challenge to Delaware’s system of public school segregation in Gebhart took place y ears after the enactment of the unconstitutional statute and over half a century after Article X , Section 2 of the Delaware Constitution of 1897 took effect

. Still, t he Court of Chancery, Delaware Supreme Court , and United States Supreme

539 U.S . 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2003) (“... Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct was unconstitutional, ”) ; Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n , 558 U.S. 310, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010) (... federal statute barring independent corporate expenditures for electioneering communications violated First Amendment, ) ; Obergefell v. Hodges , 576 U.S. 644, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2015) (“ The right to marry is a fun damental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same - sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty, ” striking down several longstanding state p rohibitions on same

- sex marriage) ; Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. , 600 U.S. 181, 143 S. Ct. 2141, 216 L. Ed. 2d 857 (2023) (H eld the longstanding practice of considering race as a factor in admissions at private and public institutions of higher learning unconstitutional). 24 Gebhart v. Belton , 91 A.2d 137, 140

- 141 (Del. 1952), aff'd sub nom. Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, Kan. , 349 U.S. 294 (1955). 25 91 A.2d 137 , 137. 26 347 U.S. 483, n.1 (1954), supplemented sub nom. Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, Kan. , 349 U.S. 294 (1955)

.12

Court did not find the plaintiffs had waived their rights to challenge the unconstitutional laws

. Defendants implore the Court not to “ give any credit to Plaintiff’s invocation of segre gated school and poll taxes

. ” 27 They ask the Court to ignore Brown and Harper because the race - based laws challenged therein were obviously wrong , and
in Plaintiffs’ opinion , the presently challenged election laws are obviously right

. Simply put, Defendants ’ waiver argument is myopic

. The purported wisdom of a statute is beyond the purview of the judiciary. When assessing the constitutionality of a statute it is not the r ole of the Court to determine whether a challenged statute is good or bad , right or wrong, or wise or unwise

. Th at is the role of the General Assembly. “ T he Court's role

— indeed, our duty

— is to hold the challenged statutory enactments up to the light of o ur Constitution and determine whether they are consonant or discordant with it.” 28 A citizen ’ s right to challenge an allegedly unconstitutional statute is not waived by the mere passage of time ,

e specially when the alleged constitutional violation is “in the single arena
... most fundamental to a functioning democracy , ” voting rights. 29

27 Reply Br. i n Further Support of Defs. Mot. to Dismiss at 12. 28 Higgin , 295 A. 3 d 1065, 1097

. 29 Mennella , 2023 WL 309042, at *2.13

B. Plaintiffs’ claim against Delaware’s Permanent Absentee Voting Statute is not barred by 10 Del. C. § 8106. The relevant portion of 10 Del. C. § 8 10 6 titled “ [a] ctions subject to 3

- year limitation” reads, “...no action based on a statute ... shall be brought after the expiration of 3 years from the accruing of the cause of such action.” 30

Plaintiffs’ claim is not based on a statute b ut instead based on the current Co nstitution of the State of Delaware. Plaintiffs ’ action challenges the constitutionality of Delaware’s Permanent Absentee Voting Statute , it does not seek relief under it , therefore 10 Del. C. § 8106 is inapplicable

. As such, Plaintiffs’ Constitutional c laim against Delaware’s Permanent Absentee Voting Statute is not barred by the three

- year statute of limitations set forth in 10 Del. C. § 8106

.
IV. Plaintiffs not only state a claim upon which relief can be granted, they demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the challenged statutes violate the Delaware Constitution. The standards governing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Delaw are Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) are well settled. “[A] complaint will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff could not recover under any reasonably conceiva ble set of circumstances susceptible of proof. ” 31

30 10 Del. C. § 8106

. 31 Klein v. Sunbeam Corp. , 94 A.2d 385 , 391 (Del. 1952)

.14

The standards governing the rebuttal of a statute’s presumption of constitutionality are similarly well settled. “ One who seeks to invalidate a statute on constitutional grounds has the burden of rebuttin g this presumption of validity and constitutionality which accompanies every statute. Constitutional prohibitions to legislative action must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.” 32 For the following reasons I find not only that Plaintiffs have stat ed claims upon which relief can be granted, but that they have proven by clear and convincing evidence that the challenged statutes violate the Delaware Constitution.

A. Relevant Interpretative Principals In reaching its decision in Higgin , the Delaware Sup reme Court laid out the

“ well

- settled interpretative principles ” by which Delaware Courts conduct an analysis of constitutional claims. 33 These principals serve to protect the separation of powers in our government, ensuring a balance between the authority of the Constitution, General Assembly, and Judiciary. The first principal is that enactments of the Delaware General Assembly enjoy a presumption of constitutionality. 34 “A ll reasonable doubts as to the validity of a law must be resolved in fav or of the constitutionality of the legislation. ” 35 The

32 Higgin , 295 A.3d 1065, 1088

- 1089 (internal citations omitted). 33 Higgin , 295 A.3d 1065 , 1088

. 34 Id. 35 Id

. at 1089 (internal citations omitted)

.15

challenging party bears the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that an enactment of the General Assembly is unconstitutional. 36 Despite this deference to the General Assembly, “ when such a construction discerns a conflict between the Constitution and a statute, the Constitution will prevail. ” 37 Delaware Courts adhere to the longstanding constitutional precedent set
in Justice Marshall’s seminal 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison t hat “ an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ” 38

B. 15 Del. C. § 5402 Delaware’s Early Voting Statute violates Article V , Section 1 of the Delaware Constitution
.
1. Delaware ’ s Early Voting Statute impermissibly expands when general elections are held beyond the constitutionally designated day.

Article V , Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Delaware is titled

“ [t] ime and m anner of holding general election

. ” 39 In its relevant portion i t states,

“ [t] he general election shall be held biennially on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November, ” 40 Delaware’s Early Voting Statute permits a
voter to “ vote in person during at least 10 days before an election, up to and including

36 Higgin, 295 A.3d 1065 , 108 9

. 37 Evans v. State , 872 A.2d 539, 553 (Del. 2005). 38 Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803) ( quoted in Higgin, 295 A.3d 1065, 1089 )

. 39 Del. Const. art. V

, § 1. 40 Id.16

the Saturday and Sunday immediately before an election .” 41 The conflict between these two passages is obvious

. O ur Constitution enumerates the one day an election shall be held biennially and the Early Voting Statute allows for voting at least 10 days before that date

.
A s stated above when such a conflict exists the “Constitution will prevail.” 42
Art icle V , Section 1 has been interpreted by this Court to “mean[] what it plainly

sa ys. ” 43 Therefore, “ t he general elec tion shall be held biennially on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November.” 44 The word “shall” commands the general election be held on th at specific day enumerated in the text . O ur Constitution provides only one such day, not any day or series of days the General Assembly sees fit

. “To give it a different meaning would be, in the court's opinion, judicial legislation. ” 45 Defendants argue that the word election as it appears in Art icle V , Section 1 does not mean what it plainly says. They suggest instead, such a plain reading ignores precedent set by the United States Supreme Court in Foster v. Love , which define d an election as “the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make

41 15 Del. C. § 5402

. 42 Higgin , 295 A.3d 1065, 1089

. 43 State v. Hart , 129 A. 691 , 694 (Del. Super. Ct. 1925). 44 Del. Const. a rt

. V

, § 1

. 45 Hart , 129 A. 691 , 694

.17

a final selection of an officeholder.” 46 Defendants use this altered meaning of “election” to suggest that the day the “election shall be held” is merely the last day which votes can be cast, not the only day when votes may be cast. I find this argument unavaili ng
. Ironically, Foster invalidated a form of early voting, Louisiana’s “Open Primary

. ” 47 The Open Primary was an election held in October of a federal election year, weeks before the federal biennial election day set by C ongress. 48 In the Open Primary “a ll candidates, regardless of party, appear on the same ballot and all voters are entitled to vote. If a candidate for a given office receives a majority at the open primary, the candidate ‘ is elected ’ and no further act is done on federal electi on day to fill that office. ” 49 Writing for the Court, Justice Souter found that Louisiana’s Open Primary ran afoul of federal election statutes. 50 In interpreting the relevant f ederal election statutes to reach this conclusion Justice Souter wrote, “ When the federal statutes speak of “the election” of a Senator or Representative, they plainly refer to the

46 522 U.S. 67 , 71 (1997). 47 Foster , 522 U.S. 67, 67. 48 Id. 49 Id. 50 Id. at 69

.18

combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder ” 51 ( emphasis added )

. This analysis does not require an in terpret ation of federal statutes

. Instead, it requires an interpretation of our own S tate C onstitution and the enactments of our
G eneral A ssembly. I f the matter before this C ourt required an interpretation of federal election statutes, I would be bound by Foster and its definition of “the election ” , but that is not the case

. The definition assigned to “the election” in Foster is not the definition of “ g eneral election” as it appears in Art icle V , Section 1 and this Court is not bound by it.

As stated above, Delaware law requires this Court to interpret A rticle V , as meaning what it plainly says. 52 “ [Article V , Section 1] is so clear and complete that no statute, we think, can be invoked to aid in its interpretation. It means what it plainly s ays, no matter what the effect may be. ” 53 Th is required plain reading of Article V , commands the general election be held “ biennially on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November.” 54 Any enactment of the General Assembly that provides for casting ballots on other days than th at day enumerated

51 Foster , 522 U.S. 67 , 71

. 52 Hart , 129 A. 691 , 694

. 53 Id. 54 Del. Const. a rt. V

, § 1.19

by Article V

, Section 1 , unless permitted elsewhere Article V, runs afoul of and is inconsistent with the Constitution.

2. Early Voting is not a mean, method, or instrument that secur es the secrecy or independence of the voter, preserves the freedom or purity of elections, or prevents fraud corruption and intimidation thereat.

Art icle V , Section 1 also provides that “ the General Assembly may by law prescribe the means, methods and ins truments of voting so as best to secure secrecy and the independence of the voter, preserve the freedom and purity of elections and prevent fraud, corruption and intimidation thereat. ” 55 Defendants claim this language empowers the General Assembly with th e authority to enact the Early Voting Statute

. They argue, the Early Voting Statute is an “additional manner of voting in connection with the general election” that allows votes to be cast “for a period prior to the constitutionally designated general election day.” 56

I agree in part

. Interpreting Art icle V , Section 1 plainly as required, 57 it is obvious that E arly V

oting is in fact a manner of voting. While true that Article V , Section 1 permits the General Assembly to enact voting laws , those laws must be enacted “ so as best to secure secrecy and the independence of the voter, preserve the freedom and purity of elections and prevent fraud, corruption and intimidation

55 Del. Const. art. V

, § 1. 56 Re ply Br . in Further Support of Defs. Mot. to Dismiss 17

- 18

. 57 Hart , 129 A. 691 , 694

.20

thereat.” 58 When directly asked at oral argument how the Early Voting Statute accomplishes this mandate Defendants’ replied by saying “early voting i tself does not negate that provision. Early voting still allows voters

– I think it allows voters to exercise their independence and to fully

– in their full ability to participate in the election....” 59 Ultimately, Defendants’ take the position that the E arly V oting Statute is compl ian t with our Constitution because it is not less secure than traditional voting on election day. Defendants fail to articulate how Delaware’s Early Voting Statue accomplishes Article V , Section 1’s mandate to “ secure secrecy and the independence of the voter, preserve the freedom and purity of elections and prevent fraud, corruption and intimidation thereat.” 60 While early voting is clearly a method of voting, the Early Votin g Statute was not enacted “so as best to” nor does it achieve the ends required of a method of voting enacted by the General Assembly under Article V , Section 1

. The Early Voting Statute extends beyond the limited grant of authority provided to the Genera l Assembly under Article V, Section 1 and is therefore not constitutionally permissible.

58 Del. Const. art. V

, § 1. 59 Tr. at 26

- 27. 60 Del. Const. art. V

, § 1.21

C. 15 Del. C. § 5503(k) Delaware ’ s Permanent Absentee Voting Statute violates Article V

, Section 4A of the Delaware Constitution
. “At the founding of ‘The Delaware State’, our constitution required voters to cast ballots in person.” 61 This requirement remained in effect until 1943 when the
108 th Session of the General Assembly amended the Delaware Constitution a dding Section 4A to Article V. 62 Titled “Gene ral Laws for Absentee Voting” Section 4A has been amended several times since 1943 with each amendment typically enumerating a new class of voter who may participate in absentee voting. 63 “[T]he General Assembly must take all possible precautions against fraudulent abuse of the privilege when enacting an absentee voters’ law.” 64 Today Section 4A provides: The General Assembly shall enact general laws providing that any qualified elector of this State, duly registered, who shall be unable to appear to cas t his or her ballot at any general election at the regular polling place of the election district in which he or she is registered, either because of being in the public service of the United States or of this State, or his or her spouse or dependents when residing with or accompanying him or her, because of the nature of his or her business or occupation, because of his or her sickness or physical disability, because of his or her absence from the district while on vacation, or because of the tenets or tea chings of his or her religion, may cast a ballot at such general election to be counted in such election district. 65

61 Higgin , 295 A.3d 1065, 1071

. 62 Randy J. Holland , The Delaware State Constitution 215 (2d ed. 2017)

. 63 Id. at 216

. 64 Id. at 215. 65 Del. Const. a rt

. V

, § 4A

.22

In its relevant portion Delaware ’ s Permanent Absentee Voting Statute permits certain voters who fall within categories specified elsewher e in Chapter 55 to apply in writing for permanent absentee status. 66 The categories of person s permitted to apply for permanent absentee status is not at issue. 67 Instead, t he constitutional issue raised by Plaintiff

s is the creation of a permanent absentee voter status and the Permanent Absentee Voting Statue’s command that the Department of Elections

“ shall automatically send an absentee ballot to each person in permanent absentee status for each election in which th e person is entitled to vote .” 68 Plaintiffs allege this enactment of the General Assembly violates Section 4A of the Delaware Constitution by “impermissibly granting eligibility to vote by absentee ballot indefinitely

... legislat[ing] outside the bounds of [ Section ] 4A’s text, and effectively enlarging the pool of eligible absentee voters

.... ” 69 For the following

reasons the Court agree s with Plaintiffs.

66 1 5 Del. C. 5503(k)

. 67 It appears that the General Assembly w as well aware of art. V , Section 4A when drafting Delaware’s Permanent Absentee Voting Statute

. The categories of persons Delawares Permanent Absentee Voting Statute permit to apply for permanent absentee status all fall within categories permitted to participate in absentee voting by Article V , Section 4A. Under scoring that it is not the category of voter permitted participate in permanent absentee voting that creates a constitutional issue with the statute, but the creation of a permanent absentee voter status itself. 68 15 Del. C. 5503(k)

. 69 Pls. Br. i n Opp’n to Defs. Mot. t o Dismiss at 32

.23

Section 4A allows the General Assembly to enact laws that permit qualified registered voters, “ who shall be unable to appear to cast his or her ballot at any general election ” to “ cast a ballot at such general election to be counted in such election district ” 70 ( emphasis added ). To preserve the sense of Article V , Section 4A , it only makes sense that “such” refers to the nearest reasonable antecedent “any general election.” 71 Further, t he use of the singular “a” before the singular “ballot” demonstrates that only one absentee ballot may be cast for any such general election at which the voter shall be unable to appear. In other words, Section 4A allows a voter to participate in absentee voting at only the election at which they are unable to appear. This grammatical analysis demonstrates that Delaware’s Permanent Absentee Voting Statute is clearly at odds with Article V , Section 4A the Delaware Constitution. As it stands the Permanent Absentee Voting Statute would allow a voter who may be unable to appear at an upcoming election because of a temporary illness, such as the flu, to check a box on a form and automatically receive absentee ballot s in all future general elections regardless of whether or not that voter i s still
ill at the time of those future elections

. At each future election the Department of

70 Del

. Const. a rt. V

, § 4A

. 71 Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. G arner, Reading Law the Interpretation of Legal Texts 146 (2012) ( quoting Sim’s Lesee v. Irvine , 3 U.S. 425 (1799) “ The rule is, that ‘such’ applies to the last antecedent, unless th e sense of that passage requires a different construction

. ” ; see also Barnhart v. Thomas , 540 U.S. 20, 27

- 28 (2003) )

.24

Elections requires no further affirmation that the voter is still in a situation that would require them to cast an absentee ballot. In the words of Defendants ’ Counsel “ you are not making any sort of statement regarding permanent absentee voting when you return the absentee ballot...if you're absentee, you are absentee.” 72

Article V , Section 4A limits absentee voting to only such general election where the voter c annot cast a ballot in person for a constitutionally enumerated

reason. By granting indefinite absentee voting to those who are unable to vote in a single election , Delaware’s Permanent Absentee Voting Statute impermissibly extends beyond the limited auth ority granted to the General Assembly by our Constitution

. Therefore, although likely well intentioned, I find Delaware’s Permanent Absentee Voting Statute violative of the Article V , Section 4A of the Delaware Constitution.

CONCLUSION

This decision is not made lightly, and it should be noted that the spirit and goal s of the challenged legislation are not what are being ruled on today. Nothing in this Opinion and Order should be read to sug gest that polices intended to support the enfranchisement and inclusion of voters in Delaware are per se unconstitutional.
“T he Court's role

— indeed, our duty

— is to hold the challenged statutory enactments

72 Tr

. at 47.25

up to the light of our Constitution and determine whether they are consonant or discordant with it. ” 73 The enactments of the General Assembly challenged today are inconsistent with our C onstitution and therefore cannot stand. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs are DEN IED . Plaintiffs request for declaratory judgement is GRANT ED . It is so ORDERED
. /s/ Mark H. Conner Mark H. Conner, Judge

cc : Prothonotary

73 Higgin , 295 A. 3 d 1065 , 1097

.