Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

Scope of the Ruling

• Case concerns Fenwick Island, DE, whose charter lets non-resident property owners vote in municipal elections.
• Court held that if property is owned via a Delaware entity (LLC, corporation, trust, partnership), that “artificial entity” gets one vote, same as a natural-person owner.
• Charter includes a local safeguard: if someone qualifies both as resident and property owner (or via multiple parcels), they still only get one vote in that town.

One Person, One Vote vs Property-Based Voting

• Many see any extra vote for non-resident owners as violating the spirit of “one person, one vote,” especially if a person can vote where they live and where they own property.
• Others argue the principle is “one vote per person per election,” and that voting in multiple jurisdictions (home, village, school district) already happens.
• Dispute over whether paying property tax without local residency should confer a vote; some insist “if you want a say, live there,” others invoke “no taxation without representation.”

Corporations as Voters / Personhood

• Critics argue corporations are legal fictions, not sentient, and giving them votes lets real people amplify their influence via entities.
• Supporters frame a corporation as a proxy for its human owners: if the charter lets non-resident owners vote, ownership via an entity shouldn’t remove that right.
• Counterpoint: corporations offer liability and other advantages; it may be reasonable that choosing that form means forfeiting extra political rights.

Abuse Scenarios and Structural Risks

• Extensive discussion of gaming the system:
  • Creating many LLCs or trusts, each owning slivers of land or joint interests, to manufacture votes.
  • Using Delaware Series LLCs to generate many “entities” cheaply.
• Some note practical barriers: zoning, minimum lot sizes, subdivision approvals, transaction costs. Others propose workarounds via joint ownership and entity design.
• Judge’s reasoning is criticized for dismissing such scenarios as hypothetical and relying on the claim that corporations aren’t currently abusing the system.

Historical / Comparative and Broader Concerns

• References to company towns, City of London and Hong Kong business votes, and special districts (e.g., Disney’s former Florida district) as real-world analogues.
• Broader fear: expanding corporate political rights (on top of money-as-speech and limited liability) further entrenches corporate power and weakens equal representation.