We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

The Delaware Supreme Court has reversed a lower court’s ruling that early voting and permanent absentee status are unconstitutional.

The Court did not decide on the merits of the case, but only ruled that the plaintiffs, a state elections inspector and a Republican lawmaker, did not have standing to bring the case, The Associated Press reported.

The newswire noted:

Justice Gary Traynor said elections inspector Michael Mennella and Senate Minority Leader Gerald Hocker had not met their burden of establishing “imminent or particularized harm.” To achieve standing, he said, a plaintiff must demonstrate an injury that is “more than a generalized grievance” shared by the population at large.

“Because we have concluded that the plaintiffs do not have standing, we do not reach the merits of their state constitutional claims,” Traynor wrote in an opinion for the court.

The justices said Hocker did not establish standing as a purported candidate because he will not stand for reelection until 2026. “That election, in our view, is not imminent,” Traynor wrote.

The court also rejected Mennella’s argument that he has standing as an inspector of elections and would have the authority to turn away voters based on his belief that the laws are unconstitutional.

The court also ruled that the plaintiff’s status as registered voters whose votes would be harmed by illegally cast votes would still not give them standing to bring the case.

Justice Karen Valihura concurred with the decision but said his colleagues went too far in focusing on the previous election in 2020.

“I believe that the highly expedited nature of this proceeding counsels for a narrower holding that identifies and reserves for another day a more careful delineation of the boundaries of registered voter standing,” the Justice said.

The United States Supreme Court weighed in on a key mail-in ballot issue ahead of the 2024 presidential election this month.

Without providing a reason, the justices turned down a case alleging a “crisis of confidence” regarding Oregon’s decades-old mail-in ballot system. The state adopted universal mail-in ballots in 2000 after residents approved them in a 1998 referendum.

The plaintiffs contended that “every phantom vote cast disenfranchises a legitimate vote” and sought to have the court dismantle the state’s mail-in voting system. The district court dismissed the lawsuit last summer, and the plaintiffs then appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which also dismissed the case last December.

“Plaintiffs do not allege that their votes were not counted, nor do they identify with sufficient particularity how any given election in Oregon was fraudulently manipulated through the vote-by-mail or computerized tabulation systems,” the three-judge panel wrote. “Indeed, plaintiffs concede that they do not know whether Oregon elections are fraudulently manipulated. Plaintiffs allege only that they suffer a ‘crisis of confidence’ in Oregon’s voting systems, which is the same ‘speculative’ grievance that we found insufficient to confer standing in Lake.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision last month that could significantly influence election outcomes in Pennsylvania, a key swing state, as well as other battleground states, marking a notable win for Republicans who have been advocating for voter integrity measures.

The court overturned a federal district court’s order and ruled in favor of the Republican National Committee (RNC) regarding signature verification for mail-in voting in the “crucial” state.

Per NPR, the case was about whether mail-in ballots with an incorrect or no date at all under the voter’s signature should be counted.

Democrats argued that the materiality provision, as outlined in Section (a)(2)(B) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, should apply, thereby asserting that the ballots should be counted.

The Materiality Provision prohibits denial of the right to vote because of an “error or omission” on paperwork “related to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting,” if the mistake is “not material in determining whether [an] individual is qualified” to vote.

The post Delaware Supreme Court Rules In Mail-In Ballot Case appeared first on Conservative Brief.