Voter registration bill amended

Last week the Delaware House of Representatives passed a bill that could have thrown this year’s Rehoboth Beach municipal election into chaos. This week, the state Senate is riding in with two amendments to the bill that state officials say will clear up confusion.

Sen. Ernie Lopez, R-Lewes, will introduce two amendments to House Bill 395, now in the Senate, that would prevent towns from setting time requirements for property owners or residents before they may register to vote. The bill specifies the maximum wait time for voter registration in municipal elections is 30 days.

However, the original bill raised questions about voting in places like Rehoboth, one of a handful of municipalities that allow nonresident voting. The concern raised in Rehoboth is that the bill would allow summer employees, such as lifeguards, and seasonal renters the right to vote.

Lopez’s first amendment will take nonresidents out of the equation and specify that the 30-day wait-time applies only to residents. Lopez’s second amendment would keep the bill from taking effect until after November - he said a date has not been chosen yet - so as not to affect local elections in Rehoboth or state and federal elections later in the year.

Rep. Pete Schwartzkopf, D-Rehoboth Beach, said if the bill passes with Lopez’s amendments, it will go back to the House for a vote as amended before being sent to the governor.

The bill’s author, Rep. Melanie Smith, D-Bear/Newark, said Rehoboth’s current rule, requiring residents and nonresidents to live or own property in Rehoboth for six months before registering to vote is unconstitutional. In her synopsis, Smith cites U.S. Supreme Court precedent establishing that residency requirements are illegal. The problem, Schwartzkopf said, is the court’s decision applies to residents, who have a guaranteed right to vote. Nonresident voting is a privilege granted by few municipalities. Rehoboth City Solicitor Glenn Mandalas said there is very little case law on nonresident voting because only three or four states allow it.

The bill was introduced June 2 and was amended and passed the House of Representatives June 16 on a 37-2 voice vote. The bill was reported out of the Senate’s Administrative Services/Elections Committee June 22 but has not been scheduled for a vote.

Schwartzkopf said he supported the original bill but did not sponsor the amendment. He said he was not aware the bill had been changed until the vote was held. He denies trying to rush the bill through.

However, Commissioner Stan Mills said the speed with which the legislation moved was a problem, noting the amendment and the vote were the same day, giving the towns no time to study or respond, especially towns with nonresident voting that would be most affected.

Smith said the only thing the bill changes regarding nonresident voting is the period of time prior to the election they are given to satisfy the requirements. The bill does not change the local municipality’s substantive nonresident voter requirements, such as what constitutes a leaseholder or a property owner, she said.

Smith said the bill will not change the process for leaseholders to vote; Rehoboth regulations allow for those holding a 10-year lease to vote. As an example, she said, if a lease starts April 1, but the lease is  for 10 years, the leaseholder should still be eligible to vote, even though the lease did not take effect 6 months prior to the election.

The proposed bill would ensure municipal election requirements are in line with requirements for state elections. Rehoboth’s neighbor, Henlopen Acres, allows residents and nonresidents who have owned property for 30 days prior to the election to vote.

Cooper said Rehoboth officials were not consulted about the measure, but Smith said that is not the case.

“Rehoboth officials were made aware of this constitutionality issue multiple times both last year and again several months ago and chose not to act,” she said.

The commissioners were planning to take up the issue in January but were advised by their attorney not to discuss the residency rules until a federal lawsuit is settled. It is on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia.

The suit, brought by Rehoboth resident Jackie Nichols, challenged the results of the June 27 referendum vote granting the city authority to borrow $52.5 million for an ocean outfall. Nichols’ suit challenged the residency requirement as unconstitutional. The U.S. District Court of Delaware dismissed the suit, but Nichols’ attorney, David Finger, appealed the case to the Third Circuit where it is still pending.

Schwartzkopf said he supported the idea of the bill but that the language led to unintended consequences.

“We’re going to fix it,” he said.