to any protected right unless the state has a substantial reason for the discriminatory policy that bears a substantial relationship to the state’s objectives. Delaware’s public records law discriminates on its face between citizens and non-citizens. Although the State has a substantial interest in “defining its political community,” the citizens-only provision of its public records law does not bear a substantial relationship to that interest. Accordingly, we conclude that the provision violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. We therefore will affirm the District 460 (concluding that South Carolina statute which imposed higher licensing fee on nonresident shrimp fisherman was unconstitutional); Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U.S. 415, 72 S.Ct. 428, 96 L.Ed. 458 (1952) (<HOLDING>); Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 79 U.S. 418,
holding that licensing fee for nonresident commercial fishermen constituted discriminatory tax in violation of privileges and immunities clause holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error holding refund of discriminatory tax required because predeprivation remedy not clearly available for tax years at issue holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety holding that commercial lobstering falls within the purview of the privileges and immunities clause