Another state Supreme Court has issued a significant decision about balloting changes implemented in advance of the 2020 elections that were unprecedented for several locations around the country. This takes place just before the crucial midterm elections.
The Vote-by-Mail Statute erroneously broadens the categories of absentee voters specified in Article V, Section 4A of the Delaware Constitution. The court decided that the Court of Chancery’s decision that the Vote-by-Mail Statute is unconstitutional should stand.
Article V, Section 4 of the Delaware Constitution is in contradiction with the Same-Day Registration Statute. The Court of Chancery’s ruling that the Same-Day Registration Statute does not contravene the Delaware Constitution should be overturned as a result. In view of the upcoming election, which is slated for November 8, 2022, and the Department of Elections’ wish to mail ballots to voters by or around October 10, 2022, the Court adopts this condensed order, the judgement added. “In due course, a more formal opinion outlining the Court’s opinions and the arguments for its unanimous ruling will be released. The order will go into effect right now.
Both same-day voter registration and all-mail-in balloting, the Delaware Supreme Court found unanimously, are in violation of the state constitution. The Vote-by-Mail Statute erroneously broadens the categories of absentee voters specified in Article V, Section 4A of the Delaware Constitution. The court decided that the Court of Chancery’s decision that the Vote-by-Mail Statute is unconstitutional should stand.
Despite the cost of authorization, some claim that the state maintains limits on absentee voting. In order to vote in person, for instance, a voter must be physically unable to travel to their polling place owing to a physical handicap or a chronic sickness.
Ayonne “Nick” Miles, a plaintiff in the action that aimed to invalidate the regulations put in place before to the 2020 elections, said that the issue was never about the statute itself but rather the process by which it came into being.
The General Assembly blatantly ignored the amendment process and believed they were beyond reproach, according to Miles, who said that this has always been about the process. “Delaware’s highest court just put them in their place,”
Sen. Kyle Evans Gay, a Democrat who sponsored legislation in the historically blue state that is home to President Joe Biden, said he was disappointed in the high court’s decision but at least praised the process.
“I’m disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling but I respect it entirely,” Gay told Delaware LIVE News. “I’m just really thankful that we now have certainty in what we need to do in order to continue to expand voting rights.”
She added that she still believes her interpretation of the Constitution, that it provides “a floor, not a ceiling” to the reasons residents can vote absentee, the report said.
As Gay noted on the Senate floor, “the Supreme Court dissented, and that is our system of democracy — it is our checks and balances.” The legislative must now play its part in order to [enact] the policies that we want to be implemented because the Supreme Court has already done its part. It’s not insurmountable. Simply said, something must be done differently.
Gay urged the state general assembly to take up the issue during its upcoming session and propose a constitutional amendment that may expand the use of mail-in ballots and other voting methods. Jane Brady, the plaintiffs’ attorney, asserted that was what should have occurred in the first place. Michael Mennella and Michael Higgin.