Hocker v. Albence — Court upholds Delaware’s permanent-absentee voting law

Case
The Honorable Gerald W. Hocker and Steven Washington v. The Honorable Anthony J. Albence, in his official capacity as State Election Commissioner, and State of Delaware Department of Elections
Court
Delaware Court of Chancery
Judge
David, V.C.
Date Decided
September 4, 2026
Docket No.
C.A. No. 2026-1021-BWD
Topics
Absentee voting; Election law; Constitutional challenge; Summary judgment
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Two candidates for the Delaware State Senate challenged Delaware’s permanent-absentee statute ahead of the November 2026 general election. The law allows voters qualifying for certain constitutionally permitted absentee-voting reasons to obtain permanent absentee status and automatically receive ballots for elections in which they may vote.

The candidates argued that Article V, Section 4A of the Delaware Constitution permits absentee voting only when a voter is unable to appear in person for a qualifying reason at a particular election. They contended that automatic ballot delivery under the statute improperly grants indefinite absentee-voting eligibility. The Department of Elections responded that permanent status ends when the qualifying reason no longer applies and that voters must report changes in eligibility.

The Court’s Holding

Vice Chancellor David denied the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion and granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court held that the statute does not enlarge the constitutionally defined classes eligible to vote absentee: its qualifying categories are a narrower subset of those permitted by Article V, Section 4A.

Although the Constitution allows absentee voting only while an elector cannot appear in person for a qualifying reason, the court concluded the statute respects that limit. It requires permanent absentee voters to report changes to their eligibility and requires the Department to cancel status when notified that the stated reason is no longer valid. Thus, “permanent” status does not authorize absentee voting after eligibility ends.

The plaintiffs’ complaints about allegedly insufficient agency oversight did not establish facial invalidity. The record showed that the Department sends eligibility reminders before election cycles and removes voters when they become ineligible or mail is returned as undeliverable. Any dispute over the adequacy of those procedures was for the General Assembly, not a basis to invalidate the statute.

Key Takeaways

  • Delaware’s permanent-absentee statute does not expand the constitutional categories of voters eligible to cast absentee ballots.
  • Permanent absentee status is conditional: voters must report changes, and the Department must cancel status when the qualifying reason ends.
  • Alleged administrative imperfections do not invalidate a statute on a facial challenge without clear and convincing evidence that it is unconstitutional in every application.

Why It Matters

The ruling preserves Delaware’s longstanding permanent-absentee framework for the 2026 general election. It distinguishes automatic ballot delivery from a substantive expansion of absentee-voting eligibility, so long as the statutory scheme limits voting to electors who remain constitutionally eligible.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top