Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says
A Delaware judge has upheld a town charter that lets corporations owning property there cast votes in local elections, treating them similarly to non-resident individual property owners. Commenters weigh whether this effectively lets wealthy people multiply their influence through LLCs and trusts, undermining the “one person, one vote” ideal and opening the door to company-town style control. Others argue the deeper issue is property-based voting and corporate personhood itself, questioning whether artificial entities should ever hold political rights comparable to natural persons.
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.