Delaware Judge Affirms Voting Rights for Corporations and Other Entities in Municipal Elections

Background

Delaware’s municipal charters have long allowed the owners of property—whether natural persons or legally‑created entities—to cast ballots in local elections. The practice is most visible in tiny towns such as Fenwick Island, where a handful of corporate landowners control a large share of the tax base. The ACLU sued the town, arguing that allowing entities to vote dilutes the political voice of actual residents and violates the principle of “one person, one vote.”

The Ruling

Judge Craig A. Karsnitz of the Delaware Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit in a 19‑page opinion. He noted that Delaware law explicitly treats corporations, limited‑liability companies, partnerships, trusts and similar entities as “persons” for voting purposes. The judge rejected the ACLU’s constitutional claims, stating that the suit failed to show:

• Discriminatory intent aimed at excluding natural persons.
• That entity voting consistently defeats the preferred candidates of individual voters.
• Any violation of race‑based or partisan discrimination statutes.

In his words, the fear of “faceless large corporations…controlling a small town” belongs to science‑fiction, not to the legal framework that Delaware has built around corporate personhood.

Why Delaware Matters

Delaware houses more than two million business entities—far more than its resident population. The state’s revenue model relies heavily on incorporation fees, which generate billions of dollars annually. This financial dependence is reflected in the Delaware Constitution, which enshrines corporate personhood and grants entities many of the same civic rights as individuals, including voting in certain municipal contests.

Implications for Campaign Finance

The decision arrives against the backdrop of the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which classified political spending as protected speech. While Citizens United dealt with campaign contributions, the Fenwick Island case extends the conversation to direct electoral participation by non‑human actors. Critics worry that entity voting could amplify the influence of “dark money” by allowing corporate owners to steer local policy without the transparency required for campaign donations. Supporters argue that property owners have a legitimate stake in municipal decisions that affect their investments, and that the existing framework already balances those interests.

The Bigger Picture

The ruling does not overturn Citizens United nor does it create a nationwide precedent; it simply reaffirms Delaware’s long‑standing statutes. However, the case highlights a tension that could surface in other states with similar provisions, especially as municipalities grapple with budget shortfalls and the growing concentration of property ownership.

Next Steps

The ACLU may consider an appeal, but the judge’s opinion suggests a steep uphill battle. For now, towns like Fenwick Island will continue to count votes from both residents and the entities that own the land they live on.

The image above shows a typical Delaware coastal town, the kind of community at the center of this legal debate.