In response to the recently-imposed state requirements surrounding House Bill 245 - which doubles the fraction of registered voters required for party ballot access - the Independent Party of Delaware (IPOD) has drafted remedial legislation and has e-mailed copies to members of the Delaware House of Representatives and State Senate.


In response to the recently-imposed state requirements surrounding House Bill 245 - which doubles the fraction of registered voters required for party ballot access - the Independent Party of Delaware (IPOD) has drafted remedial legislation and has e-mailed copies to members of the Delaware House of Representatives and State Senate.

“With the stroke of a pen, the governor has eliminated the ballot access of up to five out of seven of Delaware’s alternative parties in the 2010 Election,” said IPoD State Chairman, Wolf von Baumgart.

“This raises serious constitutional questions and matters of fairness and there is considerable legal precedent against changing the rules in an election year,” he continued. “I e-mailed a list of concerns to the governor on Feb. 1, coincidently the day it was signed.”

“Affected parties have reason to litigate the matter and this could potentially cost the state and People of Delaware millions of dollars, best directed to deficit reduction. That is why the IPoD, as the First State’s third largest and most rapidly growing political party is offering everyone an honorable and economical way out of a major constitutional and electoral crisis.”

HB 245 effectively doubles the fraction of total registered voters that a party must have to be on the ballot from 5/100 to 10/100, roughly translating from about 300 to 612. The situation is complicated by a long closed change of registration period beginning on March 31, thereby restricting party registration to new voters only and making it difficult for alternative parties to reach the required registration levels needed by August 24 for ballot access in the 2010 General Election.

The IPOD, per se, is not a potential plaintiff, as it is not directly affected by the new ballot access threshold requirement in 15 Del.C. §3001.